Fallout 3 teaser next month, new concept art!

[Tagaziel]

As I suspected, Mikael eventually fit snugly into the NMA mold. Questioning regarding my Fallout credentials, as well of those of others. Self-aggrandizing. Assumptions born out of ingorance (based on one preview)... You'll have to excuse me, as I really don't have the will to engage in the same bullshit I have on so many other forums.

The difference between my position and NMA's is that I'm willing to have a little faith and wait to be proven wrong. You've jumped to your conclusions straight off the bat.

Ah, the typical "you are stupid I am not" mindset, born out of sheer ignorance and lack of research concerning NMA and Fallout.

Do you honestly believe we don't want to be proven wrong? Because if you do, you utterly fail at being intelligent.

 

[Stigmata]

Ah, the typical "you are stupid I am not" mindset, born out of sheer ignorance and lack of research concerning NMA and Fallout.

Do you honestly believe we don't want to be proven wrong? Because if you do, you utterly fail at being intelligent.

See:

Ah, the typical "you are stupid I am not" mindset

:|

 

[Tagaziel]

:|

The difference being that Absinthe tries to discredit me and NMA by shouting "u r stupid lol" while I discredit him basing on his lack of understanding what Fallout actually is.

 

[Kyorisu]

It must be your first day on the internet. Either that or you just enjoy trolling.

I enjoy spamming threads with Mikael Grizzly in them. Or maybe I just enjoy watching his drawn out rants about how the NMA user base hates Bethseda and how Fallout 3 will suck. Despite the masses likely buying it in large numbers and making it rather successful.

This isn't Quake 6 we're talking about, it's Fallout. You've probably never even played the games, am I right?

I have played Fallout and I've never been wowed by the architecture or it's general art style for that matter. Of course it all matters to a certain degree but as long as the game is fun to play I really don't mind. This is just me a person who is more than likely going to purchase Fallout 3.

I don't care what Bethseda do to the Fallout name it means nothing to me I'd just like to see a release from them that doesn't have hideous NPC models.

 

[Absinthe]

The difference being that Absinthe tries to discredit me and NMA by shouting "u r stupid lol" while I discredit him basing on his lack of understanding what Fallout actually is.

When did I call you stupid? I believe I said many of NMA's members are whiny, reactionary, and unreasonably hostile to differing opinions. Now, if you so happen to be one of such members, then that's tough luck for you. But if you aren't, you should at least be able to understand why many people outside of NMA perceive a severe attitude problem.

You talk about discrediting me, yet I have not seen this. Sure, you talk about it, but the closest you've come to this is belting out the wonderfully condescending question "Do you know what Fallout is?". At that point, it became quite clear you were mounting up on your high horse, and I figured I'd have skip that. But let me indulge you.

Fallout is a tactical, turn-based RPG set in a post-nuclear wasteland. Anything more than that is of your own "interpretation" or whatever you wish to call it. And treating such an interpretation as some infallible rule that only proper loyalists understand is little more than pretentiousness. And in the absence of any real argument, you've painted me as some kind of Bethesda fanboy. So if you want to argue, okay. But lay off the bullshit.

Fallout - to me - is defined by its setting, dark humor, moral dilemmas, uncompromising depiction of violence, and freedom. Thus far, I have not seen any indication of Bethesda scaling back or cheapening these things. But apparently I don't get it, or something.

 

[Kyorisu]

Fallout - to me - is defined by its setting, dark humor, moral dilemmas, uncompromising depiction of violence, and freedom. Thus far, I have not seen any indication of Bethesda scaling back or cheapening these things. But apparently I don't get it, or something.

The underlying assumption that Bethesda will somehow destroy this model intentionally or not annoys me. Cannot say I get along with people that base their arguments on assumptions either, I'm 100% with Absinthe on this matter.

 

[Sloth]

Hell, if they screw up Fallout - they will crash and burn as a company, and probably have groups taking down there servers day and night.

But I hope to God that they don't.

EDIT: Both of you are yelling, keep it down.

 

[Kyorisu]

Hell, if they screw up Fallout - they will crash and burn as a company, and probably have groups taking down there servers day and night.

It doesn't matter if they screw up Fallout or not it will still be a success which the console users can be thanked for.

 

[Sloth]

It doesn't matter if they screw up Fallout or not it will still be a success which the console users can be thanked for.

You're probably right - in my mind all games that get converted to a "lets sell more for consoles!" end up being not as good as they could have been.

 

[Tagaziel]

When did I call you stupid? I believe I said many of NMA's members are whiny, reactionary, and unreasonably hostile to differing opinions. Now, if you so happen to be one of such members, then that's tough luck for you. But if you aren't, you should at least be able to understand why many people outside of NMA perceive a severe attitude problem.

The main problem is that people tend to take only one side of the dice NMA is and use it as the base for their reasoning. NMA seems hostile, on the level of HL2.net Politics section hostile.

Another issue is that people who accuse us of being counterproductive usually don't contribute anything themselves.

You talk about discrediting me, yet I have not seen this. Sure, you talk about it, but the closest you've come to this is belting out the wonderfully condescending question "Do you know what Fallout is?". At that point, it became quite clear you were mounting up on your high horse, and I figured I'd have skip that. But let me indulge you.

Poor choice of words on my side, I didn't actually mean discredit in the lateral sense.

Fallout is a tactical, turn-based RPG set in a post-nuclear wasteland.

Partial definition.

Anything more than that is of your own "interpretation" or whatever you wish to call it. And treating such an interpretation as some infallible rule that only proper loyalists understand is little more than pretentiousness. And in the absence of any real argument, you've painted me as some kind of Bethesda fanboy. So if you want to argue, okay. But lay off the bullshit.

The problem with your definition is that any turn based RPG set in a post nuclear wasteland can be called Fallout-like. Hell, Metalheart and the Fall can be fit in. Your definition skips the "emulating pen & paper tabletop RPGs" and "heavily influenced by 50s Americana and Art Deco", which was stated by the creators of Fallout.

Fallout - to me - is defined by its setting, dark humor, moral dilemmas, uncompromising depiction of violence, and freedom. Thus far, I have not seen any indication of Bethesda scaling back or cheapening these things. But apparently I don't get it, or something.

Same for me. However, dark humor, moral dillemas and setting are the segments of Fallout that are prone to being screwed up by Bethesda.

The underlying assumption that Bethesda will somehow destroy this model intentionally or not annoys me. Cannot say I get along with people that base their arguments on assumptions either, I'm 100% with Absinthe on this matter.

What we have so far is empty promises from Beth. You have more than two neurons to rub together, so you'll be able to find the quotes from the developers about Oblivion I posted (I think) five to ten pages ago, which contain exactly the same hype we are given in this preview.

Given the circumstances why exactly should we be optimistic that Fallout's spirit will be preserved?

I enjoy spamming threads with Mikael Grizzly in them. Or maybe I just enjoy watching his drawn out rants about how the NMA user base hates Bethseda and how Fallout 3 will suck. Despite the masses likely buying it in large numbers and making it rather successful.

FORUM THREAD:

NOW WITH 50% MOAR GRIZZLY INNIT!

PS: Just because a game sells well doesn't mean it's good. See: Oblivion.

 

[Gunner]

Hmmm hey anyone know where I can find those scans, please pm me. NMA is being all anal about copyright lawl.

 

[Kyorisu]

PS: Just because a game sells well doesn't mean it's good. See: Oblivion.

I'm sorry is that your personal opinion rearing it's ugly head again? There are just as many people who think Oblivion is great game.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Like me. Ive gotten so distracted with all its sidequests and such I still havent finished the game. And it still keeps me coming back for more!

 

[Gunner]

I'm sorry is that your personal opinion rearing it's ugly head again? There are just as many people who think Oblivion is great game.

It was a good game, but it became a great game with mods.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah, Oblivion would really suck without the mods.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm sorry is that your personal opinion rearing it's ugly head again? There are just as many people who think Oblivion is great game.

Just because it sells and is fun doesn't make it a good game. Especially when it's a dumbed down version of Morrowind (which in turn was a dumbed down version of Daggerfall).

 

[Somefool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8tMPOeTcYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRpun7dnQ9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE3xEea_3ok

Interviews HUZZAH!

 

[KagePrototype]

Just because it sells and is fun doesn't make it a good game.

I ju-I...wha?!

How the hell is a game supposed to be good without being fun?!

/bangs head on desk

 

[Tagaziel]

I ju-I...wha?!

How the hell is a game supposed to be good without being fun?!

/bangs head on desk

Unreal Tournament = good game

Quake 3 Arena = fun, but not really good game

Pretty simple, a good game also needs to have something that differentates it from other games of the same kind. UT had excellent bots, map design, weapon balancing and modes.

 

[KagePrototype]

Unreal Tournament = good game

Quake 3 Arena = fun, but not really good game

Pretty simple, a good game also needs to have something that differentates it from other games of the same kind.

buh?

So if UT wasn't fun to play but was still more original than Q3, it would still be considered a good game? How can originality make a game good when it's not fun to play in the first place?

I can see how originality can make a game a more fresh experience and thus more fun, but only if there was some sort of framework o' fun already in place.

 

[Stigmata]

I think he means depth of gameplay.

 

[KagePrototype]

I think he means depth of gameplay.

Even depth of gameplay doesn't guarantee a good game; a game can be complicated, but still badly designed and not fun.

 

[Tagaziel]

There are:

Bad games (not fun)

Games (fun)

Good games (fun AND something more)

 

[Stigmata]

So if Fallout 3 is fun (unknown yet), and preserves the Fallout visual theme/style, atmosphere, writing quality, SPECIAL system, and so forth (which is seeming quite likely)... why are you complaining?

 

[KagePrototype]

There are:

Bad games (not fun)

Games (fun)

Good games (fun AND something more)

But why can't a game be considered good if it's just fun? Does it really have to be held up to some vague upper echelon of game critisism to be good, rather than on its own merits?

And what does "something more" even mean anyway? Why doesn't Oblivion qualify for this? Don't the huge fanbase and consistant sales indicate that something about it really strikes a nerve with people, even if you didn't like it? Does this personal opinion of yours really give you the authority to disregard it on the behalf of everyone else?

 

[Tagaziel]

But why can't a game be considered good if it's just fun? Does it really have to be held up to some vague upper echelon of game critisism to be good, rather than on its own merits?

If a game is a sequel, it needs to be coherent and link to previous titles. Kind of like how Half-Life was continued by Half-Life 2 which kept a similiar aesthetic and method of plot explaining. Which also why Half-Life 3 can't be an RTS or an FPP/RPG hybrid.

And what does "something more" even mean anyway? Why doesn't Oblivion qualify for this? Don't the huge fanbase and consistant sales indicate that something about it really strikes a nerve with people, even if you didn't like it? Does this personal opinion of yours really give you the authority to disregard it on the behalf of everyone else?

As I said, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good. Drugs are popular, yet aren't good.

Oblivion has good marketing and would be a good game (instead of being just a game) if the promises the devs gave were actually lived to. Instead, we have RAI (Retarded AI which fails to work properly, even Gothic 1 had superior "life" routines), illogical and failing plot (classic "tunnel-in-prison-despite-teleportation-being-available"), unconvincing world (the center of the Empire is pretty much empty, even Fallout did a good job at creating the feeling of a populated city, see the Hub or Shady Sands) completely disregarding previously estabilished facts (Cyrodil wasn't supposed to be a mix of the middle ages and renaissance. It was explicitly shown in Morrowind that it was primarily inspired by the Roman Empire. Talk about coherence.) and backstory (HAIL SITHIS! Which is pretty much equivalent to worshipping the chaotic state of matter before creation, not some half-arsed Dark Father) or failing to actually show consequence (Hello Hero of Kvat-- PSYCHOPATH, PSYCHOPATH! whereas Fallout 2 actually changed dialogue in several places, most importantly Vault City and New Reno). Next, level scaling, making it possible to win the game with a rusty dagger on level 1 and meeting ragtag bandits in Daedric armor. Not to mention the compass showing you exactly where to go.

In short, Oblivion may be a fun game on it's own, but isn't really a good game, as provides nothing outside of what already is in the industry and pretty much rapes previous titles.

 

[Kyorisu]

and pretty much rapes previous titles.

Heres the thing from my point of view at least, I wouldn't have gotten into TES period before Morrowind came out as those DOS variants never managed to get my attention. Morrowind may be a dumbed down version of it's earlier counterpart but I found it to be something worth playing and the same for Oblivion.

I guess I just enjoy fun games as that's what I want to get out of gaming "fun". I don't see why a game needs to have this "something more" as that's not what I'm after when it comes to gaming. Fun and enjoyment comes first. You may think it's not a good game but plenty of others will. Fallout 3 may not live up to your criteria of a good game but it will certainly meet mine.

 

[Tagaziel]

Heres the thing from my point of view at least, I wouldn't have gotten into TES period before Morrowind came out as those DOS variants never managed to get my attention. Morrowind may be a dumbed down version of it's earlier counterpart but I found it to be something worth playing and the same for Oblivion.

I guess I just enjoy fun games as that's what I want to get out of gaming "fun". I don't see why a game needs to have this "something more" as that's not what I'm after when it comes to gaming. Fun and enjoyment comes first.

Which can be amplified if the games are actually *coherent* and form a good, continuous story. Kind of like Homeworld and Homeworld:Cataclysm or the RA->TD->TS->FS->TW story.

 

[Kyorisu]

I wouldn't say TW fit too well into the C&C story line, there are many a few inconsistencies especially with NOD (but that's another topic). As far as sequels go I don't mind if they try and tell a different story as long as the game world tries to remain the same.

In the end I just don't see the point in discussing Fallout 3 so long before it's due for release. Once we get closer I'm sure there will be new threads and I'll gladly participate in those. Until then.

 

[Tagaziel]

I wouldn't say TW fit too well into the C&C story line, there are many a few inconsistencies especially with NOD (but that's another topic). As far as sequels go I don't mind if they try and tell a different story as long as the game world tries to remain the same.

This is EXACTLY what we're fighting for. The world HAS to be the same, since the presentation and gameplay won't.

Also, having played through C&Cs repeatedly, I can say Nod fits in pretty well, except for timeline screw ups on EA's part.

In the end I just don't see the point in discussing Fallout 3 so long before it's due for release. Once we get closer I'm sure there will be new threads and I'll gladly participate in those. Until then.

If you, the developers, want the fans? input on how to improve the game, why is no information released until things are already set in stone? I can assume the answer is, ?My boss tells me not to,? but can you prove my assumption to be wrong?
Noonan: Because as you put it, we, the developers, arent PR. As much as many of us may want to, it is not our task to relay snippet of info after info to the general public. So, in a sense, yes, it is a case of ?My boss tells me not to?, but we also understand why, being on the inside. As for things being released before the stone chiseling, we all know just how much more gas would be thrown on the flames if info was released then pulled back because of changes. Happens with all games?. simple knowledge there.

 

[Kyorisu]

This is EXACTLY what we're fighting for. The world HAS to be the same, since the presentation and gameplay won't.

I'll wait and see doesn't bother me too much. I sympathize with you to some extent on the other hand. Oh well, sucks to be a game developer in this day and age.