Ehhh, still count me among the mildly nervous. Particularly when he has lines basically saying, "I know everybody is worried that this is going to be Oblivion with guns. But *I* want Oblivion with guns!"
Personally, I don't want Oblivion with guns. I want Fallout with 3D. There's a big difference there.
But, as a famous philosopher once said, "You can't always get what you want."
Ehhh, still count me among the mildly nervous. Particularly when he has lines basically saying, "I know everybody is worried that this is going to be Oblivion with guns. But *I* want Oblivion with guns!"
Personally, I don't want Oblivion with guns. I want Fallout with 3D. There's a big difference there.
But, as a famous philosopher once said, "You can't always get what you want."
But if you try sometimes, you get Oblivion with guns.
I'm like a flashing lightning and a rolling thunder, I'm like a stepping razor
If can't have Fallout with 3D, Oblivion style gameplay in a Fallout setting (assuming they get the source material) is not exactly something that doesn't appeal to me.
I said it before and I'll say it again, they couldn't be more likely to get my money if they just took my wallet and removed the money themselves.
*Sigh* I'm in the camp that appreciates RPGs in the style of the original Fallout, which is an exceedingly small number of games such as Arcanum. I strongly doubt Bethesda can get anywhere close, they lack the writing talent or the ambition, their goal is a popular, rather casual RPG in the vein of Oblivion. Once example of many is ignoring Fallout's P&P roots, it is really a P&P emulation game, that design being more central to the game that the setting or storyline... and exactly what Bethesda has discarded. You can read more about that on No Mutants Allowed, if you don't write them off as mindless fanatics from the start.
Basically, I have no enthusiasm for Fallout 3, or Bethesda for that matter (it is far and few between that I've seen a company so willing to trample over it's own fans, and I'm speaking of the Elder Scrolls people here). For my money, Age of Decadence is a better successor to Fallout than what Bethesda is working on.
Well, I don't have much faith in Bethsoft either, but that's mostly because they blow huge wads of cash on big-name actors and Oblivion is the first game they've ever produced that wasn't unplayably buggy.
You can read more about that on No Mutants Allowed, if you don't write them off as mindless fanatics from the start.
That's a pretty big leap...
Honestly, I think reading NMA for negatives about Fallout 3 is a gigantic waste of time; you'd be hard-pressed to find a more negatively-biased bunch, when it comes to Fallout 3. Even though there are probably some legitimate concerns (I was going to say 'beefs', but how legitimate can a complaint about a game that isn't out yet be?), they get lost in the noise.
If I could only bring three things to a desert island, all three would be you. And I'd make you all kiss. -a softer world
I vote that we should have a thread to track all the names of users who whine, show indignation on the direction of Fallout 3, and generally proclaim it 'Oblivion with guns', without having actually played it.
Then 3 to 6 months after it releases, we compare the list of "I vow never to play Fallout 3" goodjers to the reality of how many broke down, purchased it and enjoyed it for what it is.
Location: In your fruit bowl terrorizing the oranges
Friday, April 25th, 2008 - 1:39pm
I could swear we've had this conversation before.
Perhaps we can just save up all our nerd rage until the game actually comes out, and then have one final thunderdome style battle to settle things. And afterwards, we can leave the whole stupid topic behind for good. Sound like a plan?
Edit: Also, I think Irongut may be on to something with his list idea.
Perhaps we can just save up all our nerd rage until the game actually comes out...
Than again, there is a point... comparing the information Bethesda released so far to all the post-apocalyptic setting RPGs released in the past 7 year. I fear Fallout 3 is DOA!
I think we should have a thread to track all the names of users who whine, show indignation on the direction of Fallout 3, and generally proclaim it Oblivion with guns, without having actually played it.
I'm surprised at the "You can't criticize a game until you've played it" attitude. Not only has a substantial amount of information been released at this point, but Bethesda has their press demo, which should serve as a fairly good indication about the direction they are taking their game. More than that, we have the past work of Bethesda to judge them by, the team is close to the same one as behind Oblivion. When is an appropriate time to criticize, if not when the pertinent information is avaliable and the people responsible have a past body of work?
Hell, I don't even vow not to ever play the game, I'll probably have some fun with it. But will it be a true sequel to Fallout, taking into account the fundamental design of the original game? Bethesda has all ready rejected that possibility. It is going to be another fun, rather forgettable in the long term blockbuster, which is what the modern Bethesda specializes in.
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Honestly, I think reading NMA for negatives about Fallout 3 is a gigantic waste of time; you'd be hard-pressed to find a more negatively-biased bunch, when it comes to Fallout 3. Even though there are probably some legitimate concerns (I was going to say 'beefs', but how legitimate can a complaint about a game that isn't out yet be?), they get lost in the noise.
Try this article, which isn't about Fallout 3 at all, but rather the development history of the original Fallout. Basically the why and how the original Fallout was created to be the game it was.
I vote that we should have a thread to track all the names of users who whine, show indignation on the direction of Fallout 3, and generally proclaim it 'Oblivion with guns', without having actually played it.
It wouldn't be such an issue if it wasn't brought up in 75-90% of all interviews. For the writers to have to state that its not Oblivion with guns so frequently just raises the question even more. People start to wonder if its for the truth, or the cover up.
I'll buy it. I love the Fallout universe too much not to give it a shot. But as someone who hated Oblivion, I'll do it with worry in my heart. Especially after an interview in PC gamer where one of the Devs said they were not making a game for old Fallout fans but for the new fallout fans. That made me worry a bit. Cant remember what number it was.
In reality though after such a long time it becomes impossible to live up to hype and anticipation. Fans are rabid and dying for a new Fallout. Think of how rabid the Star Wars fans were and how long they waited for a new George Lucas poo on your childhood fest...oops I mean movie. I just hope it wont be like Star Wars where I left the theater after Episode I thinking I just had my childhood molested. Hey, as long as I get the game and Jar Jar doesn't jump out at me saying "War, War never ends" I could be happy.
Syldar wrote:
If there was a GH:Metallica, I wonder if you would have to play at the expert level at the start then work your way through the years to the easy mode - just like the real band did!
By the way, I'm curious about the whole nerd-rage thing. See, I'm unhappy with what Bethesda has done with Fallout 3, as are a few other people. Rather more people are undecided about the entire thing, and yet others are fine with it. Fair enough, we have the right to our opinions, even presumably to discus them.
But I have the temerity to suggest that Fallout 3 may be a flawed sequel, citing the original design of Fallout, and suddenly I'm dog-piled by people making various apocryphal statements about me?
When is an appropriate time to criticize, if not when the pertinent information is avaliable and the people responsible have a past body of work?
When you have an actual context within which to apply that information, rather than creating a context based on conjecture? ie, after you've played the game? I know where you're coming from, and I don't fully disagree, but I think people (in general) have a tendency to take information scraps from developers, extrapolate them into some form that may or may not actually coincide with what the devs are really doing, and then complain about both the scenario that they've essentially invented and the way that the 'official' dev information fits within that scenario. This obviously happens much more before a game is out and people get a chance to really play it.
Tannhauser wrote:
Try this article, which isn't about Fallout 3 at all, but rather the development history of the original Fallout. Basically the why and how the original Fallout was created to be the game it was.
The article wrote:
Research and writing by Sander, edited by Tannhauser.
*gasp* You... you're one of them!
(Reading the article now.)
post-article-reading EDIT:
As I said, it's not all terrible stuff at NMA, but the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low. I think that article counts as signal.
From what I know of Fallout 3, and I admit here that I haven't been following the minutiae, most of what's mentioned in that article seem to still hold true. Was the link a reason why you have concerns about Fallout 3, or a reminder that there is gold in the dross?
If I could only bring three things to a desert island, all three would be you. And I'd make you all kiss. -a softer world
Well, I don't have much faith in Bethsoft either, but that's mostly because they blow huge wads of cash on big-name actors and Oblivion is the first game they've ever produced that wasn't unplayably buggy.
Um... I didn't have any problems with Morrowind. Hell, I even added my own stuff to the game and didn't cause any bugs.
I love the Fallout universe too much not to give it a shot. But as someone who hated Oblivion, I'll do it with worry in my heart.
I'm in the same boat. Although I'll probably wait for a day or two to hear if people are saying it's a steaming pile of crap before I plop down $60 for it.
Burton wrote:
In reality though after such a long time it becomes impossible to live up to hype and anticipation.
People used to say that about HL2. Valve seemed to prove that it is possible to actually excede the wildest of expectations and hype. If one really cares to do it, that is. Bethesda apparently does not. They are dead set on making what they want to make and damn be the fans.
I also live about forty-five minutes away from the Bethesda development team, it is a small world.
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
post-article-reading EDIT:
As I said, it's not all terrible stuff at NMA, but the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low. I think that article counts as signal.
From what I know of Fallout 3, and I admit here that I haven't been following the minutiae, most of what's mentioned in that article seem to still hold true. Was the link a reason why you have concerns about Fallout 3, or a reminder that there is gold in the dross?
Both, but more of the former. You see, one of my major concerns with Fallout 3 is that as a sequel, it is shaping up to be quite poor. Bethesda has been straight-forward about abandoning the P&P aspect of the game, which is more central to Fallout's design than the setting itself. Rather Bethesda has clamped onto the setting nearly the exclusion of all else, it seems to be the major thing that connects their game to Fallout 1 or 2. That is why I brought up Age of Decadence, while it has a different setting, the core design is built around Fallout's P&P roots. In a certain light, you could cast it as a better sequel.
In terms of signal-to-noise, I generally think you are safe around the articles. The forums are a different matter, as they always are. Take a look around: the Fallout 3 FAQ is comprehensive and nothing but attributed developer/gaming media quotes. The NMA Fallout 3 preview remains the most extensive reporting on that press demo, and there was even a follow-up with the neutral Desslock (who ran RPGDot formally and now runs RPGWatch). You can even read the quite lengthy Glittering Gems of Hatred, which will be your best bet at understanding where the Fallout community is coming from in regards to Fallout 3.
But I have the temerity to suggest that Fallout 3 may be a flawed sequel, citing the original design of Fallout, and suddenly I'm dog-piled by people making various apocryphal statements about me?
Is that what's happening here? Seems pretty civil to me.
I think what gets a lot of people's dander is not folks (like yourself) suggesting that F3 may be a flawed sequel, but flatly and vehemently stating that it will be awful, and not really a Fallout game at all, and here are all the reasons why.
If I could only bring three things to a desert island, all three would be you. And I'd make you all kiss. -a softer world
Honestly, if I wanted to play Fallout again, I would pull out the old CDs and play Fallout again; in fact I've done that more than once. But when I look forward to a new game, I want it to be something I haven't played before. That's why I'm really excited about Fallout 3.
I guess I don't understand why the universe of Fallout is so married in the NMA crowd's mind with the game mechanics of Fallout 1 & 2. If they're taking a beloved setting, and making a great game out of it, why are they somehow doing wrong if the game they make is different in every way from the other games using that setting? Should we deride Halo Wars for being a RTS instead of an FPS?
I'm like a flashing lightning and a rolling thunder, I'm like a stepping razor
By the way, I'm curious about the whole nerd-rage thing. See, I'm unhappy with what Bethesda has done with Fallout 3, as are a few other people. Rather more people are undecided about the entire thing, and yet others are fine with it. Fair enough, we have the right to our opinions, even presumably to discus them.
But I have the temerity to suggest that Fallout 3 may be a flawed sequel, citing the original design of Fallout, and suddenly I'm dog-piled by people making various apocryphal statements about me?
Probably due to statements like this:
Tannhauser wrote:
It is going to be another fun, rather forgettable in the long term blockbuster, which is what the modern Bethesda specializes in.
For one i'd say the numbers would disagree with you and second that these type of statements color the rest of what you say with a less than impartial tint.
which will be your best bet at understanding where the Fallout community is coming from in regards to Fallout 3.
I take issue with saying that NMA is the "Fallout community". I'm a huge fan of Fallout and I'll have nothing to do with the mindless fanaticism and hate that goes on there.
We're getting another game in a setting we love. It's not Fallout 2, it's not Van Buren, it's not "Oblivion with guns", but to be upset about having a new post apoc world to explore is just ridiculous.
But I have the temerity to suggest that Fallout 3 may be a flawed sequel, citing the original design of Fallout, and suddenly I'm dog-piled by people making various apocryphal statements about me?
There is this overwhelming hostility and huge disdain towards Bethesda for trying to make a new game in a franchise they respect that seems so different from any other game sequel I can think of. Even if someone hated Oblivion, I don’t see why people are acting like they are the worst developers imaginable to handle this.
There are plenty of franchises I enjoyed, in many mediums including games, where it drastically changes and/or the people in control over it have been replaced. Sometimes it doesn’t work out the way I like, in which case I whine a bit, and then begrudgingly mention that they chose to move in a direction I don’t agree with, and ignore its existence.
That’s what I don’t understand. If dissenters said they weren’t happy with the direction they’re taking the Fallout license, and would probably skip it, that’s fine. But they aren’t. Instead, obsessively follow every detail about it until it comes out, reading every preview, trying to over-analyze it and try and convince people that it’s not “really Fallout” despite what they may think, as if what makes something “Fallout” is some objective material that can be quantifiably measured. And then they say they’re probably going to purchase it anyways, and that they actually think the game will still be good. It seems much ado about nothing. To say a game doesn’t fit the model of what a mythical Fallout 3 made by the original developers would be if it actually existed seems highly subjective at best, and breaching insanity at worst.
Mind you, it helps that sites like NMA have ensured that we all already have a poor perception of anyone who takes the position in the first place. (Note Jeff Green being a part of that piece, unwisely trying to find common ground amongst NMA members after the egregious error involving publishing a preview where the writer claimed to be a Fallout fan and also liked what he saw of the third one.)
I would think the first rule of PR is to ignore forum people, because they vacillate between crazy and liar. - Elysium
Should we deride Halo Wars for being a RTS instead of an FPS?
If Halo Wars, an RTS, was the only sequel to Halo that Halo fans would ever ever get, the Internet would explode into a flamewar the likes of which it could not hope to survive.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Good lord, I wouldn't have expected brilliance like that from that nemeslut Quintin Stone!
Well, I don't have much faith in Bethsoft either, but that's mostly because they blow huge wads of cash on big-name actors and Oblivion is the first game they've ever produced that wasn't unplayably buggy.
Um... I didn't have any problems with Morrowind. Hell, I even added my own stuff to the game and didn't cause any bugs.
Admittedly, Morrowind was a more stable product than those before it (though by no means flawless), in part because they had to do a console release so game-killing bugs couldn't be easily fixed. However, Morrowind's code optimization was still terrible. It's not unusual to hear about computers that can run Oblivion smoother than Morrowind.
Ehhh, still count me among the mildly nervous. Particularly when he has lines basically saying, "I know everybody is worried that this is going to be Oblivion with guns. But *I* want Oblivion with guns!"
Personally, I don't want Oblivion with guns. I want Fallout with 3D. There's a big difference there.
But, as a famous philosopher once said, "You can't always get what you want."
TF2 medic and the guy who runs the Rock Band Downloadable Content Review site
But if you try sometimes, you get Oblivion with guns.
I'm like a flashing lightning and a rolling thunder, I'm like a stepping razor
We don't have a catch-all Fallout 3 thread yet?
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Eh, it's better than nothing!
Xbox Live: Nei HD | Playstation ID: Nei_GWJ
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/31845?page=6
Ratboy made one.... but it's quite long. Perhaps we need a new one?
A blog: by me!
No, we don't need a new one. Catch-all threads get long. That's just what they do.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Yeah, but that's not what you're getting... :/
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
If can't have Fallout with 3D, Oblivion style gameplay in a Fallout setting (assuming they get the source material) is not exactly something that doesn't appeal to me.
I said it before and I'll say it again, they couldn't be more likely to get my money if they just took my wallet and removed the money themselves.
Unfettered Blather - Daily updated nonsense
X-Box Live Gamertag - CrazedJava
Less chatter more splatter!
*Sigh* I'm in the camp that appreciates RPGs in the style of the original Fallout, which is an exceedingly small number of games such as Arcanum. I strongly doubt Bethesda can get anywhere close, they lack the writing talent or the ambition, their goal is a popular, rather casual RPG in the vein of Oblivion. Once example of many is ignoring Fallout's P&P roots, it is really a P&P emulation game, that design being more central to the game that the setting or storyline... and exactly what Bethesda has discarded. You can read more about that on No Mutants Allowed, if you don't write them off as mindless fanatics from the start.
Basically, I have no enthusiasm for Fallout 3, or Bethesda for that matter (it is far and few between that I've seen a company so willing to trample over it's own fans, and I'm speaking of the Elder Scrolls people here). For my money, Age of Decadence is a better successor to Fallout than what Bethesda is working on.
Well, I don't have much faith in Bethsoft either, but that's mostly because they blow huge wads of cash on big-name actors and Oblivion is the first game they've ever produced that wasn't unplayably buggy.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
That's a pretty big leap...
Honestly, I think reading NMA for negatives about Fallout 3 is a gigantic waste of time; you'd be hard-pressed to find a more negatively-biased bunch, when it comes to Fallout 3. Even though there are probably some legitimate concerns (I was going to say 'beefs', but how legitimate can a complaint about a game that isn't out yet be?), they get lost in the noise.
If I could only bring three things to a desert island, all three would be you. And I'd make you all kiss. -a softer world
I vote that we should have a thread to track all the names of users who whine, show indignation on the direction of Fallout 3, and generally proclaim it 'Oblivion with guns', without having actually played it.
Then 3 to 6 months after it releases, we compare the list of "I vow never to play Fallout 3" goodjers to the reality of how many broke down, purchased it and enjoyed it for what it is.
Should be good fun.
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
I could swear we've had this conversation before.
Perhaps we can just save up all our nerd rage until the game actually comes out, and then have one final thunderdome style battle to settle things. And afterwards, we can leave the whole stupid topic behind for good. Sound like a plan?
Edit: Also, I think Irongut may be on to something with his list idea.
XBL/PSN: zeroKFE | BHA: zeroKFE | Spore: zeroKFE
Than again, there is a point... comparing the information Bethesda released so far to all the post-apocalyptic setting RPGs released in the past 7 year. I fear Fallout 3 is DOA!
Xbox Live: Nei HD | Playstation ID: Nei_GWJ
I'm surprised at the "You can't criticize a game until you've played it" attitude. Not only has a substantial amount of information been released at this point, but Bethesda has their press demo, which should serve as a fairly good indication about the direction they are taking their game. More than that, we have the past work of Bethesda to judge them by, the team is close to the same one as behind Oblivion. When is an appropriate time to criticize, if not when the pertinent information is avaliable and the people responsible have a past body of work?
Hell, I don't even vow not to ever play the game, I'll probably have some fun with it. But will it be a true sequel to Fallout, taking into account the fundamental design of the original game? Bethesda has all ready rejected that possibility. It is going to be another fun, rather forgettable in the long term blockbuster, which is what the modern Bethesda specializes in.
Try this article, which isn't about Fallout 3 at all, but rather the development history of the original Fallout. Basically the why and how the original Fallout was created to be the game it was.
It wouldn't be such an issue if it wasn't brought up in 75-90% of all interviews. For the writers to have to state that its not Oblivion with guns so frequently just raises the question even more. People start to wonder if its for the truth, or the cover up.
I'll buy it. I love the Fallout universe too much not to give it a shot. But as someone who hated Oblivion, I'll do it with worry in my heart. Especially after an interview in PC gamer where one of the Devs said they were not making a game for old Fallout fans but for the new fallout fans. That made me worry a bit. Cant remember what number it was.
In reality though after such a long time it becomes impossible to live up to hype and anticipation. Fans are rabid and dying for a new Fallout. Think of how rabid the Star Wars fans were and how long they waited for a new George Lucas poo on your childhood fest...oops I mean movie. I just hope it wont be like Star Wars where I left the theater after Episode I thinking I just had my childhood molested. Hey, as long as I get the game and Jar Jar doesn't jump out at me saying "War, War never ends" I could be happy.
Syldar wrote:
If there was a GH:Metallica, I wonder if you would have to play at the expert level at the start then work your way through the years to the easy mode - just like the real band did!
By the way, I'm curious about the whole nerd-rage thing. See, I'm unhappy with what Bethesda has done with Fallout 3, as are a few other people. Rather more people are undecided about the entire thing, and yet others are fine with it. Fair enough, we have the right to our opinions, even presumably to discus them.
But I have the temerity to suggest that Fallout 3 may be a flawed sequel, citing the original design of Fallout, and suddenly I'm dog-piled by people making various apocryphal statements about me?
When you have an actual context within which to apply that information, rather than creating a context based on conjecture? ie, after you've played the game? I know where you're coming from, and I don't fully disagree, but I think people (in general) have a tendency to take information scraps from developers, extrapolate them into some form that may or may not actually coincide with what the devs are really doing, and then complain about both the scenario that they've essentially invented and the way that the 'official' dev information fits within that scenario. This obviously happens much more before a game is out and people get a chance to really play it.
*gasp* You... you're one of them!
(Reading the article now.)
post-article-reading EDIT:
As I said, it's not all terrible stuff at NMA, but the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low. I think that article counts as signal.
From what I know of Fallout 3, and I admit here that I haven't been following the minutiae, most of what's mentioned in that article seem to still hold true. Was the link a reason why you have concerns about Fallout 3, or a reminder that there is gold in the dross?
If I could only bring three things to a desert island, all three would be you. And I'd make you all kiss. -a softer world
Um... I didn't have any problems with Morrowind. Hell, I even added my own stuff to the game and didn't cause any bugs.
XBL: NSMike | Steam | PSN: NSMike | Wii Friend Code: 7763 1519 2475 2278 | GWJ Google Calendar
I'm in the same boat. Although I'll probably wait for a day or two to hear if people are saying it's a steaming pile of crap before I plop down $60 for it.
People used to say that about HL2. Valve seemed to prove that it is possible to actually excede the wildest of expectations and hype. If one really cares to do it, that is. Bethesda apparently does not. They are dead set on making what they want to make and damn be the fans.
(@)
I also live about forty-five minutes away from the Bethesda development team, it is a small world.
Both, but more of the former. You see, one of my major concerns with Fallout 3 is that as a sequel, it is shaping up to be quite poor. Bethesda has been straight-forward about abandoning the P&P aspect of the game, which is more central to Fallout's design than the setting itself. Rather Bethesda has clamped onto the setting nearly the exclusion of all else, it seems to be the major thing that connects their game to Fallout 1 or 2. That is why I brought up Age of Decadence, while it has a different setting, the core design is built around Fallout's P&P roots. In a certain light, you could cast it as a better sequel.
In terms of signal-to-noise, I generally think you are safe around the articles. The forums are a different matter, as they always are. Take a look around: the Fallout 3 FAQ is comprehensive and nothing but attributed developer/gaming media quotes. The NMA Fallout 3 preview remains the most extensive reporting on that press demo, and there was even a follow-up with the neutral Desslock (who ran RPGDot formally and now runs RPGWatch). You can even read the quite lengthy Glittering Gems of Hatred, which will be your best bet at understanding where the Fallout community is coming from in regards to Fallout 3.
Is that what's happening here? Seems pretty civil to me.
I think what gets a lot of people's dander is not folks (like yourself) suggesting that F3 may be a flawed sequel, but flatly and vehemently stating that it will be awful, and not really a Fallout game at all, and here are all the reasons why.
If I could only bring three things to a desert island, all three would be you. And I'd make you all kiss. -a softer world
We have. Everyone has.
Like eleventy-twelve-billion times.
XBLive: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
I don't imagine master craftsmen leaping away from completed projects and shouting "Done, motherf*ckers! - 1Dgaf
Honestly, if I wanted to play Fallout again, I would pull out the old CDs and play Fallout again; in fact I've done that more than once. But when I look forward to a new game, I want it to be something I haven't played before. That's why I'm really excited about Fallout 3.
I guess I don't understand why the universe of Fallout is so married in the NMA crowd's mind with the game mechanics of Fallout 1 & 2. If they're taking a beloved setting, and making a great game out of it, why are they somehow doing wrong if the game they make is different in every way from the other games using that setting? Should we deride Halo Wars for being a RTS instead of an FPS?
I'm like a flashing lightning and a rolling thunder, I'm like a stepping razor
Probably due to statements like this:
For one i'd say the numbers would disagree with you and second that these type of statements color the rest of what you say with a less than impartial tint.
Gamer Tag: Rantyr
I take issue with saying that NMA is the "Fallout community". I'm a huge fan of Fallout and I'll have nothing to do with the mindless fanaticism and hate that goes on there.
We're getting another game in a setting we love. It's not Fallout 2, it's not Van Buren, it's not "Oblivion with guns", but to be upset about having a new post apoc world to explore is just ridiculous.
So do you go to a movie theatre showing Spiderman 4 to see some new never before seen superhero? I'm sorry, but I really fail to follow this argument.
(@)
There is this overwhelming hostility and huge disdain towards Bethesda for trying to make a new game in a franchise they respect that seems so different from any other game sequel I can think of. Even if someone hated Oblivion, I don’t see why people are acting like they are the worst developers imaginable to handle this.
There are plenty of franchises I enjoyed, in many mediums including games, where it drastically changes and/or the people in control over it have been replaced. Sometimes it doesn’t work out the way I like, in which case I whine a bit, and then begrudgingly mention that they chose to move in a direction I don’t agree with, and ignore its existence.
That’s what I don’t understand. If dissenters said they weren’t happy with the direction they’re taking the Fallout license, and would probably skip it, that’s fine. But they aren’t. Instead, obsessively follow every detail about it until it comes out, reading every preview, trying to over-analyze it and try and convince people that it’s not “really Fallout” despite what they may think, as if what makes something “Fallout” is some objective material that can be quantifiably measured. And then they say they’re probably going to purchase it anyways, and that they actually think the game will still be good. It seems much ado about nothing. To say a game doesn’t fit the model of what a mythical Fallout 3 made by the original developers would be if it actually existed seems highly subjective at best, and breaching insanity at worst.
Mind you, it helps that sites like NMA have ensured that we all already have a poor perception of anyone who takes the position in the first place. (Note Jeff Green being a part of that piece, unwisely trying to find common ground amongst NMA members after the egregious error involving publishing a preview where the writer claimed to be a Fallout fan and also liked what he saw of the third one.)
I would think the first rule of PR is to ignore forum people, because they vacillate between crazy and liar. - Elysium
If Halo Wars, an RTS, was the only sequel to Halo that Halo fans would ever ever get, the Internet would explode into a flamewar the likes of which it could not hope to survive.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Admittedly, Morrowind was a more stable product than those before it (though by no means flawless), in part because they had to do a console release so game-killing bugs couldn't be easily fixed. However, Morrowind's code optimization was still terrible. It's not unusual to hear about computers that can run Oblivion smoother than Morrowind.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore