Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360???

[Slowtrain]

When dealing in sequels and using material from the same setting the game needs to be wholly consistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No it doesn't. A single game generally needs to be internally consistent to itself, has to set rules and conditions that are predictable so that the gamer understands how the gameworld reacts to what she does, but even that is not a hard and fast rule. Inconsistency between totally different games is pretty much irrelevant. A lot of people play game 2 or 3 in a series without ever playing one that came before. WHy should they care about a consistency between the game they are plaing and early games that they have never even heard of?

[aVENGER]

It's been stated repeatedly that the goal of this doesn't really accomplish anything.

 

And it's been disproved repeatedly as well.

 

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).

 

It may not, but even if the site convinces just one person to decide for and by himself/herself not to buy the game an accomplishment has been made.

 

Futhermore, there's no reason to believe that the sites are going to be sources of unbiased, objective truth.

 

And there's no reason to believe that Bethesda's PR hype will be any better. Just look at some of the Oblivion pre-release interviews.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it was created out of the desire to fight instead of simply giving up and letting Bethesda ruin the third installation of a great franchise. BTW, just out of curiosity, as a fellow MOO1&2 fan, did you also like MOO3 and did you suggest to any of your friends to buy it?

[Slowtrain]

It's been stated repeatedly that the goal of this doesn't really accomplish anything.

 

And it's been disproved repeatedly as well.

 

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).

 

It may not, but even if the site convinces just one person to decide for and by himself/herself not to buy the game an accomplishment has been made.

 

Futhermore, there's no reason to believe that the sites are going to be sources of unbiased, objective truth.

 

And there's no reason to believe that Bethesda's PR hype will be any better. Just look at some of the Oblivion pre-release interviews.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it was created out of the desire to fight instead of simply giving up and letting Bethesda ruin the third installation of a great franchise. BTW, just out of curiosity, as a fellow MOO1&2 fan, did you also like MOO3 and did you suggest to any of your friends to buy it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm touched to know you are all looking out for my welfare in saving me from the horrible Betehsda PR machine. Such altruism is rare indeed

[aVENGER]

I'm touched to know you are all looking out for my welfare in saving me from the horrible Betehsda PR machine.  Such altruism is rare indeed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thou honors us with such praise, fair maiden. The glorious and ever vigilant Knights of the Codex

[Slowtrain]

I'm touched to know you are all looking out for my welfare in saving me from the horrible Betehsda PR machine.  Such altruism is rare indeed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thou honors us with such praise, fair maiden. The glorious and ever vigilant Knights of the Codex

[Pidesco]

And don't forget EA. They have mind control powers too.

[213374U]

if the site convinces just one person to decide for and by himself/herself not to buy the game an accomplishment has been made.

And thus, it's finally admitted that all there's behind this effort is resentment and bitterness.

 

Sad in many ways, really.

[Slowtrain]

And don't forget EA. They have mind control powers too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good call. EA is the worst. Only James Bond can stop them now.

[Surreptishus]

This is like the guys who cancelled Enterprise!

[alanschu]

And it's been disproved repeatedly as well.

 

No it hasn't.

 

It may not, but even if the site convinces just one person to decide for and by himself/herself not to buy the game an accomplishment has been made.

 

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.

 

And there's no reason to believe that Bethesda's PR hype will be any better. Just look at some of the Oblivion pre-release interviews.

 

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."

 

 

No, it was created out of the desire to fight instead of simply giving up and letting Bethesda ruin the third installation of a great franchise.

 

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.

 

BTW, just out of curiosity, as a fellow MOO1&2 fan, did you also like MOO3 and did you suggest to any of your friends to buy it?

 

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.

[mkreku]

Sorry for inserting an article link amongst all the bickering, but:

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12529

 

An interview with Bethesda and a little tidbit about Fallout 3.

 

Hope it hasn't been posted before..

[metadigital]

*Pruned*

 

Keep it to the argument, not the arguer.

[Slowtrain]

Finally, when asked about Bethesda's highly anticipated resurrection of the classic Fallout post-apocalyptic role-playing franchise, Hines was obviously coy:

[Deraldin]

This is like the guys who cancelled Enterprise!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That deserved to be canceled. The only good episodes were the alternate evil universe ones.

[aVENGER]

No it hasn't.

 

You should work on your reading comprehension.

 

Your goal is specifically to convince people to NOT buy the game.

 

If Bethesda makes an unsatisfactory product, and the site exposed some of its aspects (i.e. some things that vastly differ from the past games) and if that fact estranges some people and convinces them not to buy the game is that really wrong? You tell me.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Slowtrain]

[Heh, if Bethesda makes a worthy FO3 I'll happily eat my words and personally apologize to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, but what defines "worthy FO3" is of course the point of contention. There are those for whom "worthy" = "identical to FO".

[213374U]

[alanschu]

No it hasn't.

 

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.

 

 

If Bethesda makes an unsatisfactory product, and the site exposed some of its aspects (i.e. some things that vastly differ from the past games) and if that fact estranges some people and convinces them not to buy the game is that really wrong? You tell me.

 

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.

 

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Pidesco]

The guys who want to start this anti-hype site are elitist pricks.

[Vic]

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

 

Fanaticism breeds crazies.

[Sand]

Well, Bethesda has a certain style in which they make their CRPGs. I doubt they are going to change that style for the sake of one game.

[aVENGER]

Rather than straight up stating that I should "work on my reading comprehension," explain yourself.

 

We were arguing about the (lack of) usefulness/goal of the new anti-hype site, right? (see initial quote below)

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think I've offered enough credible evidence in various previous posts that such a site can and will be useful to any potential buyers of Fallout 3 who wish to get informed about the game. I never claimed that I've proven that such a site can effectively lower a specific review score, I've merely hinted that this might be the case under certain conditions.

 

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?

 

I should make a point that I can't (and won't) speak in the name of the entire Fallout community, not even the for bit that frequents the major fansites like DAC, NMA and RPGCodex. In fact, I only joined up at the Codex yesterday and that was because I wanted to show my support for this action. I can only express my own opinion on the matter, as I've repeatedly stated before.

 

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.

 

Personally, I hope that the site will be an informative, non-hostile place which can provide valuable insight into the aspects of Bethesda's upcoming FO3 and how it compares to the past games. I've clearly stated this on my first post in this thread as well on my first post ever on the RPGCodex forums. Feel free to check both.

 

It's already happening now, when we know virtually nothing about the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right now, we have some vague quotes from Bethesda spokesmen and their past games to compare. In time, as the flow of information increases, the new site will grow as well. Right now, it be set up to offer a review of the likable features of the past Fallout games, for example, to which the features of Bethesda's FO3 can be compared later on.

[Vic]

Well, Bethesda has a certain style in which they make their CRPGs.  I doubt they are going to change that style for the sake of one game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Vic

[Sand]

Then again they might not. Also they have slowly been making their TES games more and more dumbed down. Compare TES2 to TES3 then to TES54.

[Vic]

Then again they might not.  Also they have slowly been making their TES games more and more dumbed down.  Compare TES2 to TES3 then to TES54.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that's because the ES games are far too ambitious. They tried to bite much much more than they could chew with Daggerfall, in fact their jaw should have broke (I suppose you could say that the game actually did). I thought Morrowind was a natural progression from there, in terms of trying something smaller.

 

There were alot of problems I had with Oblivion, though. Alot of design decisions were mistakes, which got in the way of what it could have been. Hopefully they'll learn from them.

 

I'd like to see what they can do with a small game world like Fallout's, though.