alanschu

No, I believe that that is the Adventure Club. The Super Adventure Club is much, much different.

My "changing of production rate of standard munitions" is changing Japan's by reducing the amount of resources they can feed into their industry. As the Allies, you have no real input for your production. You get a standard supply rate of each type of planes, soldiers, guns, tanks, etc. Japan allows for the expansion of factories (and shutting down of factories) and so forth, but as far as I know they don't get the bomb.

Ah, The Super Adventure Club.

The thing is, is that you're using the term "I think" an awful lot.

Hardly "credible" evidence. It's a supposition. Especially when assuming that your site will provide the "truth" and doesn't just have a whole bunch of negative "PR Crap." Like a lot of websites (and information in general), those that typically read it, are probably the ones that already believe it. What's a "worthy" Fallout 3 though? All "we don't do isometric/turn-based well" means is that Bethesda's not looking on making Fallout 3 isometric, nor turn-based. Considering there have been successful games that are neither isometric nor turn-based, this is not damning to Fallout 3. Unless, your goal is to point out the differences, and why people should not buy Fallout 3 based on these differences. It rules out the possibility that maybe, even if it's quite unlikely, that these differences are actually an improvement of the game. Says the guy that takes "We don't do isometric/turn-based well" as being a full on travesty and unholy blight against the Fallout Universe. Mkreku stated straight up that it's not an influence. You stated he was wrong because "it's only natural" to make the comparisons. Your goal (as you've stated previously) is to convince people not to buy Fallout 3 (unless it's "worthy"). You've straight up stated that it would be an accomplishment to convince just ONE person to do so. Which means you're not just trying to promote the "truth," but rather to get people to not buy the game. But hey, keep attacking my reading comprehension. Then why did you phrase your comment as the site being an accomplishment if it convinces someone to NOT buy the game (you even italicized the word "not" to emphasise it!!), while at the same time, ignoring my comments as to whether or not you'd still feel you'd be satisfied if your site convinces someone to actually buy the game. Your goals are transparent. You phrase everything in the negative. You have stated that you hope to convince people to not buy the game (unless it's worthy), you've states that you do not feel that Fallout 3 is a good game, and that Fallout 3 will be an pox upon the entire Fallout franchise. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about you being purely about "educating" the people. Are you telling me that you're going to support this cause purely because you don't want uninformed consumers to buy games thinking that it's going to be just like Fallout 1 and 2, and that there isn't some other reason? If you're so altruistic, why only do this for Fallout 3? Surely there are other games that receive a lot of hype and will probably entice other people to buy the game and ultimately be unhappy. I know you're not the site creator/webmaster (what was that criticism you were sending my way about making assumptions). The term "You" can also be used as plural, as in the "you people" supporting this cause. In French they have a separate word for it ("vous" instead of "tu"), but I'm unaware of one that occurs in English. The thought had occurred to me that perhaps I should use "You people," but that is often used in a derogatory nature, so I opted not to. Since you're associated with the cause, "you" seemed appropriate. But as you say, I fail at reading comprehension. Consider not stating that you feel the site to be a success if it convinces people to NOT buy Fallout 3. Consider not stating that you, based on the "we don't do isometric/turn-based well," think Fallout 3 will be a poor game, even though that's all we know about it. It makes your biases transparent, and as I'm sure you've learned in life, your biases affect everything you do. You are clearly against the idea of Bethesda making Fallout 3 (based upon your comments about how not doing this would be akin to letting Bethesda ruin the franchise). When you state straight up that you'd consider it to be an accomplishment if it convinces a single person to not buy Fallout 3, it makes your goal rather transparent. On a final note, as you say, you're not going to have a direct hand in the website. Follow that link in your Codex link's first post, and see that goals very much include outright trying to reduce sales of Fallout 3. There's also a distinct anti-Bethesda feeling. The people there that support this cause are quite against Bethesda, accuse them of being liars, and so on. Even if you truly are altruistic and are doing this purely for the education of others, I doubt the rest of the people supporting this campaign are quite so sincere.

I think the was a lead in to help take people off their guard when . It's almost a given that something big will happen in an episode, and I think they tried to get people by making be that big thing. It fooled me.

Alan, that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules. No it's not. It'd be more like making Baldur's Gate without making the Dungeons and Dragons rules. SPECIAL was a ruleset created to drive the Fallout games. But Fallout doesn't require it. Just like I don't think I'd need Baldur's Gate to be a D&D game for me to enjoy it (ignoring the obvious licensing that would still be required since Baldur's Gate is set in the Forgotten Realms). I didn't enjoy Baldur's Gate (or any of the IE games) because they were D&D games (in fact, I'm not particularly fond of the AD&D ruleset), but rather because they were typically fun and interesting games. I enjoyed the setting and I enjoyed the characters. In fact, when I first got a chance to play Baldur's Gate, I didn't even know that it was a D&D game until I started creating a character. I see SPECIAL as merely a means to an end to drive the Fallout game. If it was made appropriately with d20, I doubt I'd like the game any less. Instead of doing skill checks to see if your Science skill is 40%, you check to see if your Science skill is 4. Feats and skills with weapons can be added as dice roll modifiers for your ability to hit with a weapon. Then I imagine that Llyranor's statements about the length is also good enough for you?

So you got Chaos Theory to be "playable" on a Celeron 533, with a 66 MHz system bus, and at best 256 MB of PC-133 memory? Also, the other games are just perfect "at times?"

I'm sure you would.

I made an edit.

He's making a point and you're missing it Vic. Hades made a comment about how Lionheart and Tactics are proof that realtime cannot work with SPECIAL. So Llyranor is using the same logic to prove that a long Fallout game cannot work.

Then maybe SPECIAL is the problem. If Bethesda can think of something superior, they can toss SPECIAL to the wind for all I care. Furthermore, I'd hope that someone with a University degree would know better than citing two case studies (Lionheart and Fallout Tactics) as being unequivocal "proof" of something. The fact is, you can't really prove that real-time SPECIAL can never be an improvement. You can only really disprove it.

Such as? I've read the RPGCodex link you provided. It's from that thread alone that my skepticism to the idea being in any way positive or constructive has grown. It's also where you have stated your support to spread the truth to people, and to show people "what they can really expect from Bethesda's upcoming Fallout 3." Sounds like you're already prepping to being [pernickety] criticisms for the sake of criticism. It's all about showing the people "the truth." You're making fallicious assumptions that people that enjoyed the original Fallout games won't possibly enjoy Fallout 3, and your goal is to convince them to not buy the game. People in that thread are stating that people such as this are not "fans," but just some "casual gamer." In fact, some of the people (such as galsiah) that were the ones to suggest that perhaps a moderated, constructive style be used instead, are people that in their very same post state that they don't think that this movement will have any real effect on anything. Exactly. And people such as yourself are already chastising the game, and creating websites with the specific goal to convince people to not buy the game.

It's a place to start, but we won't be able to say for certain until we see some information. Sid Meier is known for making awesome empire games, but he still made an excellent little Golf Course simulator, complete with RPG elements (levelling up your pro) and so on. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that they wouldn't be making this change simply for the sake of one game. It may be that they bought the license so that they could make a game with minimal tweaks to Oblivion's engine and making it Oblivion with guns. Or they could have bought the license to expand out. If the design of the game doesn't match up what you'd like in a game, then fine. I will wholeheartedly suggest not buying it. Personally, my recommendations will be to not buy Fallout 3 if it is a bad game. If it's a great game, even though it doesn't strictly follow the "pure" Fallout fans image of the game, I'd still recommend it to people, by virtue of it being a great game. The only places where I'd offer a footnote to the recommendation would be if Bethesda decides that the events that happened in previous games need not apply. The setting and style of Fallout are the most "untouchable" things I can see. Things like ruleset abstractions and perspectives can be changed, perhaps even improved and made even better. However, IIRC Fallout 3 is leaning towards being on the East Coast, which is a bonus for the content creation since they won't be restricted by any Canon.

I'm pretty sure they aren't available until 1945. However, if I reduce Japan to nothing more than its mainland, it's ability to wage war will effectively be neutered. Their desire to fight on with extreme devotion won't mean much if they are all starving to death with no military forces to speak of (nor the infrastructure to build more).

You should work on your reading comprehension. Rather than straight up stating that I should "work on my reading comprehension," explain yourself. Unless all you have is mentions of it in reviews. Even then, it'd be useful to actually cite a review that actually supports your claim. Even then, when someone that actually gets paid to review games states otherwise (mkreku), you basically call him a liar. Nice For the record, the only thing your previous comments "prove" is that some reviewers mentioned the site. Unless one of the authors came straight out and said "This site made me give FOBOS a lower score" you can't prove anything with it. You're making (il)logical assumptions in an attempt to support your conclusion. You may be correct, but it's certainly not proven. Your intentions are not altrustic. Don't pretend that they are. Like many games, if the product is poor, it's poor. Not even the MOO franchise could save MOO3 from being a poor selling game. You are specifically picking less than definitive words such as "unsatisfactory" and "worthy" because those words are completely subjective. What is an unsatisfactory game? One that doesn't hold up to what YOU want Fallout 3 to be? Even if the game itself is actually a GOOD game? The issue here is that the campaign is not a campaign against a BAD game, it's a campaign against a game that doesn't mold to your vision. Fallout 3 could be the best game in the history of man, but you'll be convincing people to not buy it simply because it's not Fallout 1 or Fallout 2. It's going to be a smear campaign (and as we can already see from the link you posted, the public opinion of Bethesda is less than stellar at the Codex). People will overscrutinize simply because they are Bethesda, much like how people automatically overscrutinize anything that Electronic Arts or Microsoft does. If your site convinces people to not buy an excellent game simply because it isn't what "true" Fallout fans want, then yes, it is wrong. Heh, if Bethesda makes a worthy FO3 I'll happily eat my words and personally apologize to them. However, the chances of that happening are slimmer than a snowball's chance in hell ATM. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The thing is, what you consider a 'worthy' Fallout 3 is completely subjective. You've already made up your mind on the issue, and unless it's a carbon copy of Van Buren, or one of the other Fallouts, it will be criticized. If for no other reason than they are Bethesda. This whole campaign is going to be one motivated by confirmation bias, where people will be overscrutinizing aspects of the game, simply in an effort to undermine Fallout 3. It's already happening now, when we know virtually nothing about the game.

No it hasn't. See, look at what your goal is. It's to convince people NOT to buy the game. Your metric for determining success is by convincing people to NOT buy the game. Will you still consider it an accomplishment if the site convinces just one person to decide for and by himself/herself to actually buy the game? Look at precisely what you said. Your goal is specifically to convince people to NOT buy the game. I don't expect the Bethesda PR hype to be any different. Bethesda has a vested financial interest in seeing the game succeeds. Futhermore, ALL game developers have PR hype. I guarantee you that Van Buren would have had PR hype attached to it as well. Unfortunately, you are claiming that NMA et al. ARE going to be sources of unbiased, objective truth. Now you're backpedalling saying "Oh, well it's not like Bethesda is either." See, you've already made up your mind. Bethesda has ruined the third installation of a great franchise. But I'm sure that the criticisms will be fair and unbiased. No, it was a poor game. What's your point? Poor games happen all the time. Are you saying that I should have made a website prior to the game's release badmouthing Quicksilver? I knew full well that there were changes to the game. It's not like MOO3 in any way soured my memories of MOO1 or MOO2. This isn't isolated. I love Deus Ex (favourite game of all time for me). After playing the demo of Invisible War, I figured the game was not for me. I didn't scream bloody murder. They tried something different, and it didn't work out the way I would have liked. Big whoop. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory decided to change some things, and shifted a bit from the pure Stealth that the first two games were. I found the changes to be significant improvements over the previous games. Yay me! Double Agent made a few more changes, these ones I didn't like as much, but I still enjoyed the game. Oh well. Ultima VII made a transition from an explicit/obvious tilebased, turn based game that was Ultima VI, and substituted in real-time combat instead. As far as I (and many others) are concerned, it's the best Ultima of all time. And it certainly doesn't bare much resemblance at all to the earlier Ultima games. Thank GOD the Internet wasn't around for "pure Ultima fans" to vent and petition about how Richard Garriott had decided that the first person perspective while in dungeons should be dropped. Sorry, but I don't consider it an unholy blight that MOO3 didn't live up to the other MOO games. I also don't hate Quicksilver for trying to do something new and different with the franchise. Unfortunately, it seems as though many "pure fans" are perfectly okay with paying for an updated version of a previous game, which is doubly applicable in the case of Master of Orion because the game did not particularly focus on a story, but was a 4X adventure. People bitched and moaned because MOO3 wasn't MOO2 with shiny new graphics. So tell me, what is the bigger problem with the games industry, that someone makes a game that may not be a carbon copy of the original, and ends up making a poorer game? Or the people that would rather pay for a sequel that makes no significant attempt to do anything different, and milks the license by releasing the same game as before, with perhaps shinier graphics? I wonder how many "pure MOO fans" make fun of EA Sports and their business model they use with their sports games.

Speak for yourself. I loved and wasted many hours playing MOO, and when MOO2 came out, I loved and wasted many hours playing MOO2.

That's not really the impression I got. It's been stated repeatedly that the goal of this doesn't really accomplish anything. It's not going to get you the Fallout that you want, and the impact on anything will be insignificant (if there's impact at all). Futhermore, there's no reason to believe that the sites are going to be sources of unbiased, objective truth. The site is being created in protest of where people think Fallout 3 is going to go. It's entire idea was spawned out of bitterness.

I think that that is a distinct possibility, but of course we'll have to see.

And aVENGER, the people here are very much bashing the idea. You're just not seeing it. I guess we can look forward to an influx of Codex posters for the next little while.

Ah yes, I forgot

I personally saw a whole bunch of people that loved Fallout get giddy with glee when they heard it was being made by Bethesda!

I have no doubt that it won't be sugar-coated. I fully expect it to be laced with arsenic. Unless it's so blatantly Fallout that it pretty much IS Fallout, I suspect it will be ripped to shreds. The game could have a very convenient, easy to use, and exceptionally appropriate real-time engine that makes playing the game fun, straight-forward, and very intuitive, and these places will bash it, because it's not turn-based. I have mixed expectations, based mostly on Bethesda's previous two games I have played (Morrowind and Oblivion), but I do hope that Fallout 3 is a great game. Why? Because I'm a Fallout fan, and love the series. I don't care about specific rules or player perspectives, because the parts of the game that I really enjoyed transcend any trivialities. Do I hope it captures the spirit of the original games. Absolutely. Will it be world ending if it doesn't? Absolutely not. At best, it's still a good game that I enjoy playing. At worst, it's crap and I don't buy it. In either case, it's not really any different than if "Fallout 3" never existed, and it was just called something else. Fallout 3 has zero impact on Fallout or Fallout 2, but the impression I'm getting is that people seem to be concerned that Fallout 3 will be a blight to the Fallout name. Whoop-dee-freaking-do. Ultima IX was a poor game as well, but it didn't do much to take away from the lustre of the franchise. Any fan of CRPG games in the early 90s that played Ultima VI, or Ultima VII still love those games. To agree with what Vic stated, if you don't think Fallout 3 is the game for you, then move on. Calling up a crusade of "anti-hype" because you liked two games that are approaching 10 years old now doesn't give you the Fallout game that you want. Quite frankly, it looks like the goal of this is purely to try to bash Bethesda. Which is pretty darn immature, and reeks of sour grapes.

That's what I'm thinking as well. I actually don't mind the idea of episodic content, and think it's a wonderful way for consumers to test waters with new gamestyles. I also agree that SiN's moderate success, and relative low profile compared to Half-Life and Unreal, are probably bigger reasons to SiN's relative lack of popularity. While I don't know for sure, I imagine that Half-Life Episode One was significantly more successful, though Valve/Half-Life has made a big enough impact in the eyes of gamers that it could be digitized fecal matter and people (myself included) would still eat it up. It's certainly an interesting way to find ways to get incremental ROI, especially considering the costs associated with game development have reached such high levels.