Support NeoGAF

[A Black Falcon]

They're still stuck 8 years back in their views of Fallout 3. It simply wouldn't work.

Nice!

Wow, these are the first guys I've seen say they don't like what they've seen of Fallout 3.

Huh? NMA and the other hardcore Fallout fansites have been ranting against Bethesda's version of Fallout ever since the day it was announced that they'd bought the license, and the more we see of the game the more we see that they were right... Fallout '3' might end up a decent game of post-nuclear TES (with fewer NPCs), but it sure doesn't look like Fallout.

Anyway, that statement isn't true, of course. Black Isle (Interplay)'s version of Fallout 3 -- codenamed Van Buren -- would have come out maybe three years ago, not eight, and plays pretty much just like what Fallout fans wanted. The Bethesda guy is just expressing his annoyance at NMA and the like with that statement, I think... 'they want it to be something it won't be? Bah, I'll show them' or whatever. While understandable, that doesn't condone the statement. Anyway, yes, some NMA people would have complained about anything, including Black Isle's version of Fallout, and some did about the techdemo that got out a few months back, but most didn't, or understood that the techdemo was incomplete. One of the biggest complaints was the realtime-only combat, I think, and the full version would have had a turnbased mode too... anyway, some people complain about ANYTHING. It's the degree of complaining that matters most, I think... and while NMA definitely is a negative group, they know the series very well and know what would make a good Fallout game. I don't go to NMA very often (heck, the only Fallout game I own is Fallout 1 and I never even finished it), but I have always thought that overall they have some good points... even if personally I prefer Baldur's Gate's pausable realtime combat system to pure turnbased systems like Fallout's, a view that wouldn't be too popular there I believe.

Essentially, I'd say that that statement of the Bethesda guy's was an unprofessional insult brought on by the consistently negative tone Fallout fans have used towards the company. But really, they knew this would happen, or should have... they should have been ready for exactly this response to the game from the hardcore Fallout fans. After all, this isn't a game for them. It's a game for Bethesda (TES) fans and the mass market.

What questions was he dodging in this interview? All the answers seemed pretty direct, unless you count "it's just the demo" or "we haven't implemented it yet" as dodging the question.

Well, that 'eight years ago' part sure was misrepresenting the truth, at least. So there are no great PC RPGs anymore because great, deep games (and particularly combat systems) is passe in the PC RPG genre? I don't want to believe that... if he wanted to tell the truth, he would have said "Because that is the kind of game we make. We make games with action combat, not strategic combat. You won't be particularly happy. Deal with it." That would have been honest. What he said wasn't. I mean, I like action-RPGs so I well might enjoy Fallout 3 if I played it, but that doesn't change the fact that as far as RPGs go Van Buren would have been a much, much better game.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

Rampant Fallout elitism + wide generalization of a demo /=/ a great preview.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Fallout sounds cool. These NMA characters sound like dicks.

 

[Brother None]

Go figure that NeoGAF of all places would show the most bloodthirst towards NMA's preview. Even our usual rabid detractors, like SA or QTT, had members admitting it's a pretty detailed preview and a good read. I guess you guys win the "most irrational haters of NMA" prize? Kinda ironic. Everyone prefers their own sources, tho', if you feel NMA's angle is so different from yours that NMA couldn't possible offer anything useful to you, that's fair. I'd suggest you give it a shot, but that's just author's bias.

(glad my account has been activated, yay)

Add the fact that the game won't look wildly impressive by Fall '08 - at this point it's barely on-par, aesthetically, with games out now - and you're left with a potential commercial failure. I don't care how good the writing is; with restricted combat in an FPS and lackluster visuals, you're limited to the hardcore audience, which in this case has already written the game off. Who's going to buy an average-looking game with broken (from Joe Gamer's standpoint) shooting mechanics in Fall '08? I probably will, but I certainly don't represent the average gamer, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I wouldn't write off the graphics based on these screens. I couldn't tell at this demo showing, by reasons explained in NMA's preview, but my overall impression is that Fallout 3 is a definite step up from Oblivion graphics, and that had people drooling on the same gen of consoles as we have now. It might look a bit outpaced compared to Mass Effect or Rage (if it's out then (probably not)), but I doubt it'll look embarrassing. They have 1.5 of extensive retooling to do on graphics, it'll look fine.

I agree on the RT-to hit percentage thing. Not that I think it's an annoying mechanic, it suits me just fine, but I always understood they dropped that mechanic and changed it to Oblivion-damage percentage RT combat because so many people complained. Perhaps they expect users to use VATS extensively?

That should put to rest and concerns the Fallout fans are having about Bethesda making Fallout 3.

News of Emil being lead designer was greeted with enthusiasm when it was first announced, a year or so ago. He's good people, surely, probably one of the best Bethesda has.

never disclosed their ties to the high profile fansite

There was no "please disclose your ties to any and all fansites" sign at the door. Bethesda never told us not to come, how was I to know it's a crime against the states? The guys taking care of my invitation (Gamernode) surely didn't seem to think they were committing a low, despicable act, or whatever.

copying information from other web sites that also broke the rules.

Actually, I specifically stated the other web sites I referenced to (GamerNode and Gaming Trend, respectively) didn't break any rules. Brendon, who posted in this thread too, recorded with the knowledge of Bethesda. It annoyed Bethesda, but they had forgot to specify rules, a mistake they didn't repeat at GC.

Sitting right next to Pete Hines helped in not missing any details. It would've made recording hard, tho'

You would think that, but they mention Bioshock as being 'original, visionary, consistent and executed well'.

I generally like well-done games. I loved BioShock, it was a lot of fun (this is a good point to note I liked Oblivion, too, though I'm not much of a fan of the TES series as a whole, not my type of game). But the comparison there was less on mechanics and more on overall vision and style. Something BioShock had and Fallout 3, so far, lacks. It's kind of hard to put into words, kind of a "you had to be there" thing.

they appear to have been called out on that by pcworld reporter

"called out" is not the term I would've chosen. It's hard to "call" someone "out" based on lies and misrepresentation of the truth, as Matt did there.

 

[Clevinger]

I guess you guys win the "most irrational haters of NMA" prize? Kinda ironic.

I guess you win the "most obsessive jackass with a false sense of entitlement" prize? Or is it the "admin of the most hated fansite ever" prize?

Both, I suppose.

I can only imagine what it's like put so much emotion and time into a creepy obsession with a videogame.

 

[Bowen_B]

Where can I look at this demonstration?

That's what she said!

 

[Brother None]

I can only imagine what it's like put so much emotion and time into a creepy obsession with a videogame.

And I can only imagine what's it's like to feel actual anger at the existence of a group of people. Say what you will, but in a pattern of normal behaviour scale, I'd put having a fansite above obsessing over the behaviour of aforementioned fansite.

No?

It's not important, anyway, let me know if any of you feel the need to drop the attacks on NMA and actually, and I know this might be a shocker to you, discussing the game or the preview, rather than obsessing about the behaviour of a group of people.

EDIT: wait, your nick looks familiar. Haven't I seen you post derogatory remarks to NMA before, possibly somewhere else? Is that like your shtick, is that what you do with your time, burn NMA? In that case, don't let me stop you.

 

[Azih]

Oblivion had the worst stealth of any game ever.

That is all.

Edit:

Also that Ron Perlman intro sucks compared to the first two.

 

[Gattsu25]

"The lead designer of Fallout 3 is Emil Pagiarulo, who worked on the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion and on the Thief games."

THAT FUCKING EXPLAINS IT!! I said before that the Dark Brotherhood felt like a thief game and shocked the hell out of me with how awesome it was and NOW I know *why*

so fucking awesome

I <3 Thief
I <3 Dark Brotherhood


This interview was pretty well done, actually. The questions were hard hitting and intelligent...much different from the softball shit that plagues this industry

Go figure that NeoGAF of all places would show the most bloodthirst towards NMA's preview. Even our usual rabid detractors, like SA or QTT, had members admitting it's a pretty detailed preview and a good read. I guess you guys win the "most irrational haters of NMA" prize? Kinda ironic. Everyone prefers their own sources, tho', if you feel NMA's angle is so different from yours that NMA couldn't possible offer anything useful to you, that's fair. I'd suggest you give it a shot, but that's just author's bias.

(glad my account has been activated, yay)



I wouldn't write off the graphics based on these screens. I couldn't tell at this demo showing, by reasons explained in NMA's preview, but my overall impression is that Fallout 3 is a definite step up from Oblivion graphics, and that had people drooling on the same gen of consoles as we have now. It might look a bit outpaced compared to Mass Effect or Rage (if it's out then (probably not)), but I doubt it'll look embarrassing. They have 1.5 of extensive retooling to do on graphics, it'll look fine.

I agree on the RT-to hit percentage thing. Not that I think it's an annoying mechanic, it suits me just fine, but I always understood they dropped that mechanic and changed it to Oblivion-damage percentage RT combat because so many people complained. Perhaps they expect users to use VATS extensively?



News of Emil being lead designer was greeted with enthusiasm when it was first announced, a year or so ago. He's good people, surely, probably one of the best Bethesda has.



There was no "please disclose your ties to any and all fansites" sign at the door. Bethesda never told us not to come, how was I to know it's a crime against the states? The guys taking care of my invitation (Gamernode) surely didn't seem to think they were committing a low, despicable act, or whatever.



Actually, I specifically stated the other web sites I referenced to (GamerNode and Gaming Trend, respectively) didn't break any rules. Brendon, who posted in this thread too, recorded with the knowledge of Bethesda. It annoyed Bethesda, but they had forgot to specify rules, a mistake they didn't repeat at GC.

Sitting right next to Pete Hines helped in not missing any details. It would've made recording hard, tho'



I generally like well-done games. I loved BioShock, it was a lot of fun (this is a good point to note I liked Oblivion, too, though I'm not much of a fan of the TES series as a whole, not my type of game). But the comparison there was less on mechanics and more on overall vision and style. Something BioShock had and Fallout 3, so far, lacks. It's kind of hard to put into words, kind of a "you had to be there" thing.



"called out" is not the term I would've chosen. It's hard to "call" someone "out" based on lies and misrepresentation of the truth, as Matt did there.

No no, haters of all things are very vocal here, pay no mind. It's a great read and I very much appreciate it...it's great to read a preview from people that actually are passionate about what they write about and don't ascribe to the notion that you have to blow the publishers in order continue getting chances to preview

 

[Brother None]

Oblivion had the worst stealth of any game ever.

That is all.

Edit:

Also that Ron Perlman intro sucks compared to the first two.

Eh. Expect Emil to want to fix the broken stealth. The single-stat stealth bar in the demo was a bit weird and not exactly advanced-looking, but who knows?

The intro is better when read out, but yeah, it's not really as well-written as the originals. I kinda liked their new approach to the intro: replacing grainy black-and-white stills with brown postcard stills. Cute idea, though they might want to work a little on the execution.

 

[Jenga]

THAT FUCKING EXPLAINS IT!! I said before that the Dark Brotherhood felt like a thief game and shocked the hell out of me with how awesome it was and NOW I know *why*

so fucking awesome

I <3 Thief
I <3 Dark Brotherhood

On a much sadder note, I cannot get Thief 2 to run on my PC. Not even that TTLG guide helps.

 

[Clevinger]

And I can only imagine what's it's like to feel actual anger at the existence of a group of people.

So, you've never felt anger towards a group of people for being narrow-minded, fanatical, vitriolic douchebags? You wouldn't look down on a group of people with zealotism that produces an ungodly amount of malice and hate daily? A community that produces such gem quotes as "I wish 9/11 had happened to Bethesda's offices!".

Fuck off.

 

[Jenga]

This thread just got 100% more amusing!

 

[Azih]

I'm willing to give the intro a pass. But I do not trust Bethesda to pull of stealth at all. I mean Oblivion was just.. just so bad in therms of stealth mechanics.

 

[Alts]

NeoGAF calling people elitists? Fantastic.

Say what you will about the tone of the preview, at least it is there, and it does raise some valid concerns about the game.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

Oblivion had the worst stealth of any game ever.

That is all.

You clearly didn't play Morrowind.

I actually thought playing a stealthy archer in Oblivion was the most fun out of all the classes.

 

[Brother None]

So, you've never felt anger towards a group of people for being narrow-minded, fanatical, vitriolic douchebags? You wouldn't look down on a group of people with zealotism that produces an ungodly amount of malice and hate daily? A community that produces such gem quotes as "I wish 9/11 had happened to Bethesda's offices!".

If I did that, I'd have to spend half the time on the internet foaming at the mouth raging over what people write. It's the internet, that's how it works. I can get angry at real organisations with violent or hateful intent, sure, but on the internet, half the forums are full of hateful posts. A good example is this thread. Am I supposed to hate NeoGAF now because this thread is full of narrow-minded, spiteful posts? According to you, yes. According to my standards, no.

Besides, a few bad apples doesn't define a community. Your ability to cherry-pick hateful quotes won't really change the fact that the overall attitude isn't that horrible. I kind of like how nobody felt the need to mention that this preview marks Fallout 3 as "it looks like a good game." I guess that doesn't fit your anti-NMA agenda?

Eh. If you want to believe we're evil incarnate you will. Every cult needs its effigy, I guess.

I do enjoy the irony of NMA, known as a passionate community, having some of the most rabid, obsessed detractors I've ever seen. The thought of someone getting really angry because of someone's else's opinion *on a game* amuses me somewhat, though I guess in an absolute sense I consider it just as stupid as the "I wish 9/11 had happened to Bethesda's offices!" thing you quoted. They're both stupid. Sadly, one doesn't make the other ok.

But I do not trust Bethesda to pull of stealth at all. I mean Oblivion was just.. just so bad.

We'll see. Consider that it wasn't really a point of focus for them, they had no real reason to spend a lot of time on it apart from the Dark Brotherhood. Maybe it's bad because they simply didn't care?

 

[Azih]

Nevertheless the Bethesda tech guys and gameplay designers have no pedigree at all of stealth gameplay. Absolutely none.

 

[MMaRsu]

Pete Hines: We don't know yet. We're trying to make it so that you have options to use stealth or dialogue. The lead designer of Fallout 3 is Emil Pagiarulo, who worked on the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion and on the Thief games.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'm going to preface this statement by saying I love fallout 1 & 2, probably my two favorite games ever. However,

The Fallout fan community is the biggest group of whiney bitches I've ever seen. It's not 1995. Get over it. The 'core' community is comprised of what? Ten thousand people at the most. Nobody (not even your precious Tim Cain) designs a game with ten thousand people in mind.

 

[Brother None]

Nevertheless the Bethesda tech guys and gameplay designers have no pedigree at all of stealth gameplay. Absolutely none.

The same can be said for dialogue, meaningful consequences and moral ambiguity, though. If we go on their pedigree, the whole thing can be considered bleak. But that's too absolute, just because the goals of the games are different doesn't mean the talent isn't *there*

Sure it's worrying, and something to keep in mind, but it's not an absolute pedigree yes/no question

 

[Great Rumbler]

I actually thought playing a stealthy archer in Oblivion was the most fun out of all the classes.

Definitely. There's nothing more satisfying than getting close and then popping an arrow through someone's head from the shadows.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I'm going to preface this statement by saying I love fallout 1 & 2, probably my two favorite games ever. However,

The Fallout fan community is the biggest group of whiney bitches I've ever seen. It's not 1995. Get over it. The 'core' community is comprised of what? Ten thousand people at the most. Nobody (not even your precious Tim Cain) designs a game with ten thousand people in mind.

Fallout came out in 1997.

Anyway, no, it's not that he didn't want to, it's that he couldn't get anyone to fund it (and I think that there are a lot more than 10,000 people who would buy a good, serious post-apocalyptic RPG. Most games are not made JUST for their hardcore bases, after all...)... and again, the idea that great, serious RPGs are out-of-date should be a stupid one. Maybe if this were a PC gaming site and not a console one...

I do enjoy the irony of NMA, known as a passionate community, having some of the most rabid, obsessed detractors I've ever seen. The thought of someone getting really angry because of someone's else's opinion *on a game* amuses me somewhat, though I guess in an absolute sense I consider it just as stupid as the "I wish 9/11 had happened to Bethesda's offices!" thing you quoted. They're both stupid. Sadly, one doesn't make the other ok.

Heh, good point there...

 

[Simon Belmont]

Fallout came out in 1997.

My bad.

Anyway, no, it's not that he didn't want to, it's that he couldn't get anyone to fund it (and I think that there are a lot more than 10,000 people who would buy a good, serious post-apocalyptic RPG. Most games are not made JUST for their hardcore bases, after all...)...

Right, but those people above and beyond the 10,000 (on the extrememly generous side) aren't getting their panties in a bunch because it's not turn based. In fact, those people are more than likely excited at the prospect of a first person game with real time combat and an engaging story. Christ, when Final Fantasy isn't even turn based anymore, you know the ship has sunk.

and again, the idea that great, serious RPGs are out-of-date should be a stupid one.

Right, because Oblivion was a mediocre, silly RPG.

Maybe if this were a PC gaming site and not a console one...

:lol

 

[Great Rumbler]

Fallout came out in 1997.

Anyway, no, it's not that he didn't want to, it's that he couldn't get anyone to fund it (and I think that there are a lot more than 10,000 people who would buy a good, serious post-apocalyptic RPG. Most games are not made JUST for their hardcore bases, after all...)... and again, the idea that great, serious RPGs are out-of-date should be a stupid one. Maybe if this were a PC gaming site and not a console one...

So, Fallout 3 can't be a good, serious, post-apocalyptic RPG because it doesn't follow exactly the formula of the first two games?

 

[Simon Belmont]

So, Fallout 3 can't be a good, serious, post-apocalyptic RPG because it doesn't follow exactly the formula of the first two games?

Which were inherently campy.

 

[Brother None]

So, Fallout 3 can't be a good, serious, post-apocalyptic RPG because it doesn't follow exactly the formula of the first two games?

A challenge for you lot: go through NMA's preview and count the number of times it mentions "turn-based combat", "isometric view" or "following the formula of the first two games".

I'm patiently awaiting your damning statistics. Since you seem so convinced this is "NMA's opinion", it must be visible in the preview.

 

[Great Rumbler]

A challenge for you lot: go through NMA's preview and count the number of times it mentions "turn-based combat", "isometric view" or "following the formula of the first two games".

I'm patiently awaiting your damning statistics. Since you seem so convinced this is "NMA's opinion", it must be visible in the preview.

Why are you replying to me? I was directly referencing another poster entirely.

 

[Brother None]

Why are you replying to me? I was directly referencing another poster entirely.

And my post was quoting you, but addressed to "you lot". How confusing. Are you a lot?

 

[Simon Belmont]

A challenge for you lot: go through NMA's preview and count the number of times it mentions "turn-based combat", "isometric view" or "following the formula of the first two games".

I'm patiently awaiting your damning statistics. Since you seem so convinced this is "NMA's opinion", it must be visible in the preview.

A challenge for you: Go to the NMA boards, and count how many posts are devoted to bitching about combat / perspective.

 

[johnsmith]

This game is going to be a piece of shit.


No turn based combat = fail.

 

[Brother None]

A challenge for you: Go to the NMA boards, and count how many posts are devoted to bitching about combat / perspective.

Why? I haven't made any claims either way, I have nothing to prove or back up. You're the one making absolute statements in a thread about NMA's preview. Burden of proof, in other words, isn't mine.

Again, you believe this to be NMA's opinion? Fine. So where is it in the preview? If NMA is "bitching" and "obsessed with turn-based combat" and if NMA can apparently be reduced to one entity of uniform opinion, supply me with quotes from the preview.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Why? I haven't made any claims either way, I have nothing to prove or back up. You're the one making absolute statements in a thread about NMA's preview. Burden of proof, in other words, isn't mine.

Again, you believe this to be NMA's opinion? Fine. So where is it in the preview? If NMA is "bitching" and "obsessed with turn-based combat" and if NMA can apparently be reduced to one entity of uniform opinion, supply me with quotes from the preview.

Since when is one preview from NMA representitive of the Fallout community (which is what I'm railing against). I've never once said anything about anything written or expressed by NMA itself.

 

[Great Rumbler]

This game is going to be a piece of shit.


No turn based combat = fail.

It's good that you're keeping an open mind about it.

 

[Brother None]

Since when is one preview from NMA representitive of the Fallout community (which is what I'm railing against). I've never once said anything about anything written or expressed by NMA itself.

A duck is a bird but a bird is not a duck. I'm not talking about you claiming NMA is representative of the Fallout community, I'm talking about your reducing Fallout to the "biggest group of whiney bitches I've ever seen" and then claim this self-same community is "getting their panties in a bunch because it's not turn based." Now, while NMA's preview is a duck and the Fallout community a bird, NMA's preview does not equate the Fallout community. But it should show some of its trademarked "whiney bitch" characteristics, since it belongs to the same species of Whininus Bitchius, no?

Where?

And if nowhere, ask yourself if this thread is better spent discussing this game and this preview, or whining about "whiney bitches getting their panties in a bunch because it's not turn based"?

 

[TreIII]

As I've said before, probably a number of times by now...my opinion has not changed in the least. I'm still very much looking forward to this game, and I loved the first two games, and have yet to play anything that Bethy's made.

To me, FO3 is basically going to be to the Fallout franchise like SOTN was to the Castlevania series: it's DEFINITELY going to be something different, but it stands to be something great in its own light, if not possibly/arguably superior to what we may have had before in several respects. Thus, why I'm keeping an open mind, and also why I've since placed a pre-order for the game, as further demonstration that I'm actually anticipating what's going to happen.

As for the supposed "haters" (not naming any names of any specific groups)? Really, what is there to say, besides the fact that they probably should either a) get with the program, b) let it friggin' GO already or c) get right in line with other groups who probably have just as much reason to bemoan their lot in life just as much, if not more than they are?

Honestly...WE GET IT ALREADY. You guys don't like Bethesda's Fallout 3. I think the bigger question that probably stands to be asked is..."How many times does that factoid have to be re-iterated before YOU guys get it, and realize that the majority and Bethesda really could give two shits about what you guys think", to put it lightly? Wouldn't it be better to just, I dunno, move on, and at least save some e-dignity, rather than just make yourselves more to be the e-pariahs that everyone else perceives you to be? It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing altogether when you just start to get so narrow-minded, petty & pitiful with it...

 

[Brother None]

To me, FO3 is basically going to be to the Fallout franchise like SOTN was to the Castlevania series: it's DEFINITELY going to be something different, but it stands to be something great in its own light, if not possibly/arguably superior to what we may have had before in several respects.

I'm left with a strong impression a lot of you didn't read the preview. That's ok, you don't have to, obviously, but it might be worthwhile. Because my conclusion (not talking about SuAside) adresses just this. Not Fallout 3 as a sequel, but as a standalone game. And even then, I'm not impressed. With the forewarning that this comes from someone who liked Oblivion, but who generally has very discerning tastes in gaming:

Fallout 3 looks like a well-produced, very pretty, very fun game that'll provide quite a few people with a lot of hours of enjoyment. However, I don't think it's anything more than a very pretty and fun game.
(...)
But what does that mean? Pretty much that we're looking at a pretty bland, uninspired game here, and that people expecting the next big break-through in RPGs or gaming in general to come from here should probably look the other way. And who knows how it'll hold up against competing RPG or RPG-like games in late 2008? Only time will tell. But suffice it to say that despite flashes of brilliances, I'm not overly impressed by this game, and hate to see a franchise tag that once stood for being so different now applied to something that is so humdrum and potentially dull.

Sure you can disagree with me, please do, but that's the impression I was left with after the demo.

Note the first object of the preview was to inform, not to convince. I have no problem with people reading about the dialogue mechanics or great look of the vault and going "I'm loving it!" That kind of stuff does look good, and if Fallout 3 sounds like your cup of tea, good for you. I do prefer people basing that decision on information, tho', not on hype.

PS: do be careful about speaking for "everyone" though. The opinion you state is prevalent on places like NeoGAF, Something Awfel, QT3 and TTLG. It is not shared 100% byand often not the majority of all of the people I've seen on Digg, Youtube, the official Bethesda forums, GameFAQS, RPGWatch, Gamebanshee, Blue's News, Octopus Overlord, international RPG sites, etc. etc. Look further than your nose is long, they say

 

[Simon Belmont]

A duck is a bird but a bird is not a duck. I'm not talking about you claiming NMA is representative of the Fallout community, I'm talking about your reducing Fallout to the "biggest group of whiney bitches I've ever seen" and then claim this self-same community is "getting their panties in a bunch because it's not turn based." Now, while NMA's preview is a duck and the Fallout community a bird, NMA's preview does not equate the Fallout community. But it should show some of its trademarked "whiney bitch" characteristics, since it belongs to the same species of Whininus Bitchius, no?

Where?

And if nowhere, ask yourself if this thread is better spent discussing this game and this preview, or whining about "whiney bitches getting their panties in a bunch because it's not turn based"?

Honestly I stopped reading NMA after seeing the initial backlash when it was announced that Bethsoft would be doing FO3.

But really, this thread sums it up nicely.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38006

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'm left with a strong impression a lot of you didn't read the preview. That's ok, you don't have to, obviously, but it might be worthwhile. Because my conclusion (not talking about SuAside) adresses just this. Not Fallout 3 as a sequel, but as a standalone game. And even then, I'm not impressed. With the forewarning that this comes from someone who liked Oblivion, but who generally has very discerning tastes in gaming:

Fallout 3 looks like a well-produced, very pretty, very fun game that'll provide quite a few people with a lot of hours of enjoyment. However, I don't think it's anything more than a very pretty and fun game.
(...)
But what does that mean? Pretty much that we're looking at a pretty bland, uninspired game here, and that people expecting the next big break-through in RPGs or gaming in general to come from here should probably look the other way. And who knows how it'll hold up against competing RPG or RPG-like games in late 2008? Only time will tell. But suffice it to say that despite flashes of brilliances, I'm not overly impressed by this game, and hate to see a franchise tag that once stood for being so different now applied to something that is so humdrum and potentially dull.

Sure you can disagree with me, please do, but that's the impression I was left with after the demo.

Note the first object of the preview was to inform, not to convince. I have no problem with people reading about the dialogue mechanics or great look of the vault and going "I'm loving it!" That kind of stuff does look good, and if Fallout 3 sounds like your cup of tea, good for you. I do prefer people basing that decision on information, tho', not on hype.

How could anybody after visiting your forums expect an unbiased opinion of the game?

 

[Brother None]

How could anybody after visiting your forums expect an unbiased opinion of the game?

I don't know, because the preview wasn't written by every poster on the forum?

If the preview is biased, where is the whining about turn-based, where is the "this isn't exactly like the originals hence it is terrible"? Please point it out.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

"called out" is not the term I would've chosen. It's hard to "call" someone "out" based on lies and misrepresentation of the truth, as Matt did there.

Fair enough. I dont know though, I have a reserved hope the fallout 3 will be fun and interesting to play, I couldnt play through Oblivion untill Francesco (and Oscuro) had gone thru and fixed that scaled content.

Maybe its just desperation on my part, but offerings in this setting (or cyberpunk which is my favorite setting) are so few and far between now, Ill give anything a chance.

 

[Brother None]

Fair enough. I dont know though, I have a reserved hope the fallout 3 will be fun and interesting to play, I couldnt play through Oblivion untill Francesco (and Oscuro) had gone thru and fixed that scaled content.

Expect Fallout 3 to be heavily modded too, no matter what.

But eh, nothing wrong with waiting and seeing at this point. I think both the conclusion "this game will suck" and "this game will be awesome!" are a bit pre-emptive at this point (unless you have to write a conclusion for a preview, then you have to, albeit with some caveats).

 

[Simon Belmont]

I don't know, because the preview wasn't written by every poster on the forum?

If the preview is biased, where is the whining about turn-based, where is the "this isn't exactly like the originals hence it is terrible"? Please point it out.

But what does that mean? Pretty much that we're looking at a pretty bland, uninspired game here, and that people expecting the next big break-through in RPGs or gaming in general to come from here should probably look the other way. And who knows how it'll hold up against competing RPG or RPG-like games in late 2008? Only time will tell. But suffice it to say that despite flashes of brilliances, I'm not overly impressed by this game, and hate to see a franchise tag that once stood for being so different now applied to something that is so humdrum and potentially dull.

That was a lot of flowery language to say 'this is bland because I say so'.

 

[Brother None]

That was a lot of flowery language to say 'this is bland because I say so'.

What did you expect under the header of opinions?

When I say it's bland based on my impressions of the demo it is "bland because I say so"? Ok. And how about other previewers? When they say it's great based on their impressions of the demo, do you also just claim that's the equivalent of "it's great because I say so"?

That's not an example of cutting it down based on no turn-based or no copying originals. Again, please point out said things in our "biased preview". It can't be that hard since you ran right in claiming it must be full of bias.

 

[Simon Belmont]

What did you expect under the header of opinions?

When I say it's bland based on my impressions of the demo it is "bland because I say so"? Ok. And how about other previewers? When they say it's great based on their impressions of the demo, do you also just claim that's the equivalent of "it's great because I say so"?

If you write a preview with the objective of informing people, citing specific gameplay examples without any bias would be a good place to start. Any piece of work cannot be informative and opinionated at the same time. If you had said 'this is boring because...' that would be one thing.

 

[Simon Belmont]

That's not an example of cutting it down based on no turn-based or no copying originals. Again, please point out said things in our "biased preview". It can't be that hard since you ran right in claiming it must be full of bias.

The onus is not on the reader to point out the writers bias. The onus is on the writer to prove they're not biased. You've said you have an opinion, therefore you have a bias.

 

[Brother None]

If you write a preview with the objective of informing people, citing specific gameplay examples without any bias would be a good place to start. Any piece of work cannot be informative and opinionated at the same time. If you had said 'this is boring because...' that would be one thing.

So you missed the two pages of information going before the opinions, or the fact that half the opinion page is citing example and the fact that the bit you quoted comes from a part that starts with "Since I covered most facts above, I'll now go more with the feeling I got from it"?

It might not be my place, but might I suggest you actually read it before criticising? Right now you're not making much sense.

You've said you have an opinion, therefore you have a bias.

If that's all that this is about, of course I have a bias. Just like every other previewer ever. That's not really a useful assertion, tho'

And yes, the onus is on you, because you made claims, I never made any absolute claims of that sort. Hence the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If you can't prove it, just admit it, because the way you're wrestling it down now is just silly.

 

[Simon Belmont]

So...uh...you missed the two pages of information going before the opinions, or the fact that half the opinion page is citing example and the fact that the bit you quoted comes from a part that starts with "Since I covered most facts above, I'll now go more with the feeling I got from it."

It might not be my place, but might I suggest you actually read it before criticising? Right now you're not making much sense.



Uh, yeah, duh, if that's all that this is about, of course I have a bias. Just like every other previewer ever. That's not really a useful assertion, tho'

Well? Put your money where your mouth is. I'm not going to dig up your preview. Show me your objectivity.

 

[Simon Belmont]

And yes, the onus is on you, because you made claims, I never made any absolute claims of that sort. Hence the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If you can't prove it, just admit it, because the way you're wrestling it down now is just silly.

And no, I made the claim that the community itself is being a collective douchebag to a developer that owes them nothing. You're the one that dragged your preview into this.

 

[A Black Falcon]

So, Fallout 3 can't be a good, serious, post-apocalyptic RPG because it doesn't follow exactly the formula of the first two games?

World-design wise? Yes, TES has some of the most complex, fully-realized world designs around. Combat-wise, though? Hack and slash, nothing more. I probably should have clarified that by saying something about 'strategic and not action-style combat'... this isn't an RPG, it's an action-RPG, or perhaps FPS-RPG. Same genre, it seems, as Vampire: Bloodlines and perhaps the System Shock/Bioshock and Deus Ex games...

Your point, though, is that games can still be good even if they change genres from their predecessors. And that's true... but when you've played a more complex predecessor and then play a newer, much more simple, game it's hard to not think about all the ways that the older ones were better. For me in specific, I had experiences like that with MechWarrior (2 or 3 vs. 4, much less the newer stuff... where did the sim go?), Star Wars (X-Wing/TIE Fighter vs. Rogue Squadron -- different developers, etc, but I couldn't help but think about how awesome the Rogue Squadron games would be with a X-Wing style simulator model...), Baldur's Gate (BG I/II vs. BGDA -- BGDA is a good action-RPG... but compared to the previous real RPGs? I was dissapointed.), etc. It's not really the newer games' fault, as they do what they tried to do, but it doesn't change the sense of loss that's there when you compare the two.

And yes, I like action games and stuff. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance without the BG name would have been great fun, and I did enjoy (and finish) the game. It just wasn't Baldur's Gate by any stretch of the imagination, and really shouldn't have used the name. But without the name it'd surely have sold worse, so it's used anyway. Same deal here, I think... even though I think of it as something that mostly just had a hardcore fanbase, Bethesda obviously thought that a Fallout game would do better than some new post-apocalyptic title they made from new IP would. They might be right despite all the controversy, I don't know.

How could anybody after visiting your forums expect an unbiased opinion of the game?

Everybody's biased in one way or another. The question (as far as game review/info articles goes) is whether you can restrain your biases enough to write an article that tells the reader about the game enough so that they'd know if they like it, regardless if the writer did or not...