Vic

Regardless of what they'll actually do, I've never gotten this logic. A developer is not only capable of making a certain type of game in a certain genre. If developers could not make things in different fields, then gaming would not have evolved as it is. Bethesda has never made a game like Fallout. Elder Scrolls is about as far as you can get away from Fallout in terms of design in the same genre. This does not mean they'll be incapable of making a Fallout game like it's predecessors, nor does it mean they will not even excel at it on their first try. Edit: Also, in terms of being the Developers at Bethesda; I'd imagine they'd be sick of Elder Scrolls at this point and be eager to jump on something very different.

And what have we learned today, kids? Fanaticism breeds crazies. Let's say that again: Fanaticism breeds crazies.

See, you need an NMA forum account with a thousand angry forum rants, 1000 words or more with each, before you get the honorary "True Fallout Fan" title. Hell, keep it up Sonny, and someday you could be a Roshambo! "Can I, daddy? Can I, really?" Yes, Sonny, you can. Keep it up for years and years of your life, and you will be on your way!

I personally saw a whole bunch of people that loved Fallout get giddy with glee when they heard it was being made by Bethesda! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LIES, YOU LYING BASTARD WHO KEEPS ON LYING!!! ... Ah-HA! But they aren't TRUE Fallout fans.

Simple, it could provide them with an alternative view of the game, with pure facts bereft of any deceitful PR lingo. Bereft of deceitful PR lingo, yet tainted with Fanboy bias. I'm not sure which is worse, at this point.

I'm generalizing the fanbase on these sites you mentioned and the kind they breed, not the whole Fallout fan base. They make up a very minute portion. And I think the generalization is accurate. Also, if what you're saying is true, then some are even worse than I thought, which is surprising.

I said fan protests not fan reviews. A good reviewer should research a bit of the game's lore and history, in case it claims to be a continuation of a franchise, so that he might get a clearer overview. Protest is a loose form of review/preview in this case. And again, it shouldn't influence a review even if he put a sentence blurb about it in the review. Yes, of course it is. Nobody forces these people to fanatically obsess over this game or situation. These insane fans only have themselves to blame if they hole themselves in their little fan-sites waiting every free minute of every day for scraps of information and a good sequel for a decade. They're so deeply hurt by FO:BOS (and likely, bethsoft's FO3) and the like. They feel they're entitled to being utter pieces of human **** with atrocious dispositions, looking down at the dumb masses, all when they've brought it on themselves by obsessing over something to an unhealthy degree. It's a franchise you like. You didn't get the sequel you wanted. Oh well, shrug it off you pussies and move on with your life. Your opinion of what's good is not universal, even though you wish it was. Therefore, you're not helping anything but your egos by wailing constantly and trying to get people to not buy the game that you don't like. Many more will love it. All the power to them.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? How do you know that said reviewers were not in the least influenced by various anti-FO:BOS protests? IIRC, several reviews sites had even referenced the overwhelmingly negative attitude of the Fallout fanbase toward that game. Why would a professional, objective reviewer look at other reviews to base their own? If they are, then they really shouldn't be paid for what they're doing. You think when a reviewer is told to review a game, he researches the cult fan-bases bias or unbias against something? They play the game and review it, get assigned a new game, and repeats the process. Also, reference to fans does not equal influence on review score True, but doing something is always better than doing nothing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed. How noble it is to plan to bash something before you actually know anything concrete about it. Shows a good sense of logic, reason, stability, and open-mindedness. These people have a good head on their shoulders, I tellyawhut.

You're naive if you think those sites had much, or really any, of a meaningful impact on FO:BOS' sales. It did not sell badly because it wasn't a good Fallout game, it sold horribly because it was a horrible game, and got horrible reviews because of it. The target audience who would buy the game wouldn't give two ****s if it was Fallout enough, or even know what Fallout was, and would especially care even less what a secluded fan-site says about it. The type of people that are influenced by NMA and their ilk is the small amount of traffic those sites receive. Themselves. I bet you any casual observer looking at those sites takes one look at their forums, realizes that they're indeed bat-**** insane, and skedaddle. Edit: Also, its doubtful how much of an impact internet hype (or anti-hype) would have on sales of a popular piece of media. Look at Snakes on a Plane. Generated more buzz and hype than Fallout 3 could ever dream of, was practically an internet phenomenon, yet bombed at the box office. "But Vic", you say, "We made a site that we can link people to, and tell them how Bethsoft kills puppies and TRUE fallout fan's dreams!!!" Yeah, nobody really gives a **** outside of you and your crazy online friends. Sorry. Certainly not the bulk that would be buying the game.

Why exactly is it not the case? What tools, what context? Former admin of NMA. Literally cried when BIS' Fallout 3 was cancelled.

A good developer is capable of developing good games in more than one series or genre. Says the guy who likely checks NMA every day (I'd guess multiple times a day) for any scruple of new information coming out, and when said scruple does, immediately makes the rounds commenting on it in various gaming forums. Fallout Fanatics: (w00t)

Should be interesting. I thought Oblivion was a good game for what it was: A gigantic game with each quest being more or less linear, and each of the many, many characters being uninteresting for the most part. A very large, unfocused, yet very fun for what it was, mess. I want to see what they can do with a much smaller game world, and with much fewer characters. I'd imagine the talent would be less spread thin, hopefully making the small game world much more dense and with more personality, also having more branching stories. I also want to see how the (newly hired?) writers take on a much different setting. I'm not convinced turn-based and isometric view (I'd assume it would be a movable camera) are out. I think a PR guy's comments on a game that hadn't even assembled a team to work on pre-production (you know, where they would try out these things and at least partcially decide what they want) are somewhat irrelevent. It'll be interesting to see if Todd and Co. have the cojones to do it. The isometric, turn-based combat would transition just fine to consoles. A control scheme like the ones for Disgaea and other SRPGs would work.

Except it isn't anywhere near as bad as Gothic 3. And from most of the accounts I've heard, the problems have been mainly with the people who bought it over Steam. Valve seems to have ****ed up, not the dev and pub. And in the case of the review, it's one guy being a little pissant in the midst of alot of positive reviews.

um... You are aware that there is stealth in the game, aren't you? There's three branching skillsets: Warrior, Mage, and Stealth. You can mix and match skills from each as well, for added "expression".

While it's a bit of a cliche at this point, it still applies: Go read a book for a great story. The story is decent enough, the reviewer just seems to be poo-pooing everything in the game. That review was awful. He also called the combat "unsatisfying", which is about the pure opposite of reality. The melee in this game is probably the most immersive, satisfying, and brutal of any game out there. It's pure fun. All other reviews that I know of have been very positive, despite the performance issues. Alot of the bugs are associated purely with the Steam version, with Valve's ****ty job of delivering it with missing sound files and such. http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69141 = Much better review Also, it sounds like you should avoid multi-player. It was made by a different team than the single-player, and it sounds like it's not half as good. Though, I've heard some like it.

Comparing it to Oblivion is in and of itself very stupid. Both strive to be, and are completely different. One is a game striving to provide a large, unfocused world with tons to do. The other is trying to provide a small, focused, linear leveled game focusing mostly on combat ala Hexen.

Or, it's just a bad game... Also, every time someone argues over the semantics of what a "Real RPG

Actually, the graphics really don't look that good. Especially considering those amazing looking shots they were releasing at first. The animation doesn't really help either... or the voice acting, which puts another rusty nail in the presentation.

This game isn't worth it's full price. Get it in the bargain bin, or just play Gothic 2 again.

Damn, had alot of fun with this. I really love the art direction. The combat is one of the most satisfying experiences of its type. Love alot of the little details. Casting the frost spell, but it only hitting the orc's shield or sword and just turning that to a beautiful ice texture. It's pretty satisfying when I've been fighting an orc who becomes wounded, who now stumbles around and is slow and sluggish. Like the blood decals. Like the spell effects (hand turning to flame, hand becoming ice). Unlike alot of people, I like the sense that the character is there, much like Thief 3. Forget what that's called. Also don't mind the camera moving alot. My only complaint is that my system can't quite handle it. Stutters here and there, and long loading.

Because not all of the community can be fanboys of the series like Dhruin and yourself. In any case, I might get 3. 2 was alot of fun, despite it's myriad of flaws and annoying fans.

Does anyone else think that Raiden will be killed in this game? Both of the ninjas in 1 and 2 were bad-ass, seemingly invincible, but then eventually get killed. Seems almost tradition. Raiden, noooo!!!

Eh, no vendetta here. I was just explaining myself, and while being a bit pished I was wondering why he types like a pirate talking in third person. I mean no offense.

I don't quite get this: why don't they lend themselves to interesting characters? I agree with Gromnir it's hard to make them all interesting when there are so many but I can't see why the gameplay is stacked against having any. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Notice how I said 'Amazing characters and dialogue', not 'interesting characters'. I don't agree with gromkins that there are no interesting characters, as I've said. Second, the design philosophy of ES games is what doesn't lend itself to amazing characters and dialogue. Said philosophy being the game world and amount of NPCs and quests being immense. Increasing the number of things in the game will decrease the quality of each.

I wonder if it's just that 'they suck' at making interesting characters, or that with ES there are simply too many to give any real attention to. Hence why I wonder what they can do with a smaller game like Fallout with MUCH fewer NPCs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> sounds like you is asking for a leap of faith. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Funny, sounds like you putting d'words in our mouth brudah. Hah! Good funs! I'm not pleading for your hope, I just said I was curious and it will be interesting. Also, we's (me) haves founded somes indicationses or evidesneses in oblivionses dat dey kahn meke intesting kektas. And we'hads concludeds dat t'er coud beh a reasuhn for noo stellah kektas o' dialogogoes, whet'er it beh tahlent strech'd too thin on lahge quantities, or simplay dat tes not te main draw o' dah game in dah first place. [/stupid] hah! good f- god damn that took way too long... Didn't even come out good either... Sorry, I'll translate that bit. I've had a couple drinks tonight, you must understand. [translation] Also, I've found some indications in Oblivion that they can make interesting characters. Not, "holy jesus it's amazing, or "TOP 5 NPCS O' ALL TAHM, YOU HAVE ENTERED!!!!!!!", but interesting. And I've concluded that there may be a reason as to why there is flimsy dialogue and not many well done NPCs, whether it be that talent is streched too thin on too much of a large quantity of NPCs (I.E. The more NPCs, the less quality each will have), or that it simply isn't a main draw of the series in the first place (I.E. Dialogue and Characters have never been the main draw for the series). [/translation]