Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360???

[Dark_Raven]

They are home of the true Fallout fanatics.

 

Down with Bethesda's Fallout 3! Down!

[alanschu]

For example the concept and of creating an informative site itself and the potential value of the information that such a site could provide. The whole "skipping the PR crap" in favor of truth thing.

 

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.

 

And? As I've stated before if Bethesda creates a worthy FO3 I'd be happy to advocate putting its greatness on display on the site. However, as it seems to me right now, chances are much larger that we'll be getting Oblivion with Guns (read "we don't do isometric/turn-based well").

 

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.

 

 

 

You seem to interpret a lot from those few sentences.

 

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.

 

Just like before when you've accused me of indirectly calling mkreku a liar. You should really work more on that reading comprehension of yours and try to assume a bit less.

 

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.

 

BTW, as I've already stated before, in my opinnion the actual goal should be to inform people and let them decide for themselves.

 

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.

 

 

It's a start. How many times do I have to repeat that more info should be published as soon as it becomes available? Heck, I even suggested that the site should focus on publishing the fans' favorite aspects of the past games for comparison until then. also, note that I'm just a supporter of the cause, not the initiator/creator.webmaster/whatever of the future site as you and some others seem to think

 

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.

 

Therefore, I don't have all the answers, and all I can do is suggest a course of action which I deem to be best. Consider that for a bit before blindly slinging accusations at me again.

 

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.

Edited January 27, 2007 by alanschu

[Darque]

They are home of the true Fallout fanatics.

 

Down with Bethesda's Fallout 3! Down! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or not.

[aVENGER]

Also, point out to me the exact quote where they say, "We do not do turn-based well.".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now that I've double checked it, the exact quote regarding turn-based combat was that they are "looking at many options." It's possible that I may have mixed it up with the "we don't do this well" sentence in that overwhelming fanatical zeal which you seem to constantly attribute to me. However, considering that all of the past ES games were real-time and that RT combat is "what they do well" you can easily draw your own conclusions.

[aVENGER]

Mkreku stated straight up that it's not an influence. You stated he was wrong because "it's only natural" to make the comparisons.

 

And yet again you are twisting my words. I said "It's only natural to judge each game on its own merits, but in case of direct sequels a comparison with the previous game(s) is often unavoidable, simply because a large portion of the fanbase comes from buyers of the past game(s). Whether that comparison has any impact on the final score is, of course, up to the reviewer in question." Read. Comprehend. Understand. Notice the difference?

 

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.

 

Thank you I will, because the exact words were "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.". Again, there's a difference.

 

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?

 

That pretty much sums it up, yes. However, I'll also support it because I don't feel that Bethesda can/will make a worthy FO3. And before you ask, I define its worth purely by my own personal standards which may not differ that much from he majority of the NMA/DAC/Codex fans. However, while *I* may be biased on that particular account (mistrusting Bethesda based on their reputation and previous works) I was advocating that the actual site should not be. Still, the site should objectively point out all the relevant facts (when they become available) that may potentially turn-off a fan of the previous games from purchasing FO3 (i.e. drastic gameplay changes).

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps, but then again I'm not going to be the one in charge of putting up articles on that site either so your argument looses some weight. Anyway, yes I've already said many times that I doubt Bethesda can and will make a worthy FO3 but I also said that I'd love to be proven wrong but that such a thing is unlikely to happen.

[metadigital]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interestingly, if the game is good enough all the baying by malcontents will come to nothing; after all, recall the screaming from all those unhappy gamers when Half-Life 2 was delayed and allthe doomsayers making out that it would never be as good as the original AND that was with the original developers!

[alanschu]

Thank you I will, because the exact words were "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.". Again, there's a difference.

 

You forgot something. You're hoping to convince people to not buy the game, because you state straight up that you'll consider it an accomplishment if you convince someone to not buy it. Plain and simple.

 

Stating the "by himself/herself" is a moot point, unless you don't believe in free will or honestly expect that there is some way to coerce people into buying something against their will through an internet website. I don't need to include "by himself/herself" (BTW, the standard form of ambigious gender in English is to just use the male pronoun. The use of "himself/herself" is unnecessary), since I'm not brash enough to think you'd be forcing people to buy the game. Believe it or not, when a company goes on a huge hype campaign, people are still making the decision the buy it themselves. There's no coercion going on here. You hope to influence people not to buy the game, much the same way that Bethesda hopes to influence people to buy the game.

 

Nitpicking the "by himself/herself" is simply grasping at straws. I never believed you (or anyone else) to be coercing anyone into doing anything else. But then again, I have poor reading comprehension.

 

 

That pretty much sums it up, yes.

 

Why do you care if someone else buys Fallout 3?

 

 

However, I'll also support it because I don't feel that Bethesda can/will make a worthy FO3.

 

Wait a minute. I thought it was all for public service to ensure that people don't get ripped off?

 

 

However, while *I* may be biased on that particular account (mistrusting Bethesda based on their reputation and previous works) I was advocating that the actual site should not be.

 

Impossible.

 

You honestly expect a whole group of "true Fallout fans" that have been outspoken against Bethesda's involvement with Fallout 3 since they purchased the IP to give a truly objective representation of the game? Especially when true objectivity tends to not really exist? Look at the ideas they're tossing around. Creating multiple fake websites. Creating a "fanpage" that tows the party line and hypes the game up prerelease, then suddenly releases a review that just tells it like it is. Disinformation campaigns. Some even going as far as to suggest "cover forum operations" and even (albeit just a few) outright DoS attacks.

Edited January 27, 2007 by alanschu

[metadigital]

that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Games evolve.

 

Video games are more about settings and feel than simple rules-sets.

 

Maybe it is time for SPECIAL to take a hike.

 

I mean, if we're going to be totally "purist" here, Fallout must automatically fail since it was originally designed with GURPS in mind... right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Darque wins.

 

BTW, as I've already stated before, in my opinnion the actual goal should be to inform people and let them decide for themselves.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe he's a fan of Schopenhauer?

[213374U]

Using the East Coast is a good idea.  Of course any improvements to SPECIAL needs to be actual improvements.  Making SPECIAL real time is not an improvement.  Lionheart and Tactics prove that.

In fact, Tactics was a pretty awesome squad-based tactical combat game. You have yet to come up with a valid argument to back your claim that "SPECIAL can't work in real time". Your not being able to manage it does not hold much weight around these parts, since you have proven that without a play-during-pause feature, you can't quite play RPGs.

 

 

Alan, that is like making a Dungeons and Dragons game without using the Dungeons and Dragons rules.

No. That's more like converting the crappy d6 Star Wars RPG into the undoubtedly better d20 system.

 

Oh noes, foiled again!

 

 

Is the proof unequivocal?  No, but it is good enough for me.

Huh? Then by definition it's not proof.

 

 

They sound awesome. NMA and DAC are the oldest Fallout sites still in existence. They rule. 

The only thing sadder than an elitist about something trivial is a failed elitist about something trivial.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Making SPECIAL real time is not an improvement.  Lionheart and Tactics prove that.

By that reasoning, Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor is proof that turn-based D&D is terrible.

[Jorian Drake]

MOO fans weren't really thrilled about MOO2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And then came MOO3 ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MOO2 was great but MOO3 killed the title

[Vic]

Also, point out to me the exact quote where they say, "We do not do turn-based well.".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now that I've double checked it, the exact quote regarding turn-based combat was that they are "looking at many options." It's possible that I may have mixed it up with the "we don't do this well" sentence in that overwhelming fanatical zeal which you seem to constantly attribute to me. However, considering that all of the past ES games were real-time and that RT combat is "what they do well" you can easily draw your own conclusions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, it was said by a PR guy that zealots say is full of ****, before there was a team together to design the game. Why take his word, especially in the context that there was no team working on it, as likely?

 

I draw the conclusion that he made a guess that really bit him in the ass because of zealots and knee-jerk reactions. He probably should have prescribed to his own PR philosophy of not talking about a game until everything is concrete and ready to show, and certainly not before said feature is being designed in said game.

 

edit: Second, the "Looking at many options" for battle line. They said that during pre-production. Pre-production is for concept art, concept designs and such. Trying out things and seeing if they work, ditching those that don't etc.

 

FO3 was in pre-production for two years, which is a relatively long amount of time for that AFAIK. God knows what they've come up with.

 

Hopefully if they did decide on Real-Time (or RT and TB both), they've come up with a decent combat system.

 

edit2: Lastly, like Alanschu, when I say "you", I most likely mean those three sites you mentioned, not specifically you. I should probably say "they" every time, but I forget. I wouldn't call you a zealot exactly, just someone who is unfortunately starting to subscribe to their sad philosophy.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Vic

[Volourn]

"By that reasoning, Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor is proof that turn-based D&D is terrible."

 

Oh SNAP!

[Darque]

[aVENGER]

You forgot something. You're hoping to convince people to not buy the game, because you state straight up that you'll consider it an accomplishment if you convince someone to not buy it. Plain and simple.

 

My point was, the site is not supposed to be a simple "DON'T BUY BETH'S FO3! IT SUXXORS!!!1111" thing. I'm hoping that it will be a reliable source of information which can help people to decide whether or not they want to buy that game. The way you've been phrasing it before, it seemed like the site was going to focus solely on convincing people outright not to buy FO3, instead of merely showing them why they may not want to do so. That's what I wanted to clear up.

 

Why do you care if someone else buys Fallout 3?

 

Lower sales of (a potentially unsatisfactory) FO3 could make the developers think about what they were doing wrong with the game.

 

Wait a minute. I thought it was all for public service to ensure that people don't get ripped off?

 

You asked if I had other reasons for supporting this action as well, so I voiced one of my personal motives.

 

You honestly expect a whole group of "true Fallout fans" that have been outspoken against Bethesda's involvement with Fallout 3 since they purchased the IP to give a truly objective representation of the game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The fanbase may be polarized on the matter, yet I have hope that the more moderate fractions will be in charge of the site. From what I've read so far, it seems more than likely.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Video games are more about settings and feel than simple rules-sets.

 

Those "simple rulesets" are what dictate how a game plays, which is far more important in interactive entertainment than how good it looks.

 

Maybe it is time for SPECIAL to take a hike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or maybe not. Who knows? A clear revision of the ruleset and associated mechanics may be required to improve the infrastructure that supported the gameplay. I don't expect SPECIAL to be a part of Fallout 3 in any recognizable form, and it would be more rational to develop a different type of system for a different type of gameplay rather than shoehorning an existing system in a gameplay structure that would not be made to accomodate it. But change as a mere dead formality isn't really the way to go.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

In fact, I only joined up at the Codex yesterday and that was because I wanted to show my support for this action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why did you do that, man? They eat puppies over there!

[aVENGER]

Why did you do that, man? They eat puppies over there!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, they have some good reviews and I visited the newspage semi-regularly for the past year or so. Then again, it could be that I've simply fallen under the control of The Hivemind from lurking so much. If you stare long enough into an abyss... :ph34r:

[zer"0"]

Rule No.1 : Never talk about The Hivemind

 

Rule No.2 : Never talk about The Hivemind

 

 

 

 

Regarding Bethesda's Fallout game... Its also being released for the crackbox360, need I say anything more?

Edited January 27, 2007 by zer"0"

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Rule No.3 : You only talk about The Hivemind when you can't provide a solid counter argument and want to impress your little clique who wants to make the Obsidian boards their own self-aggrandizing webspace.

[Sand]

Making SPECIAL real time is not an improvement.  Lionheart and Tactics prove that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By that reasoning, Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor is proof that turn-based D&D is terrible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It wasn't the turn base combat that made the game bad. It was everything else it had, and lack what it didn't, that made the game bad. The spastic real time combat in Lionheart made a cool premise for a CRPG unplayable.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Sand

[Llyranor]

Why did you do that, man? They eat puppies over there!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, they have some good reviews and I visited the newspage semi-regularly for the past year or so. Then again, it could be that I've simply fallen under the control of The Hivemind from lurking so much. If you stare long enough into an abyss... :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be wary about that. Some loser named Role-Player over there sent me some compromising pictures by PM. I was shocked and offended.

[Sand]

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I was shocked and offended.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But still aroused

[213374U]

My point was, the site is not supposed to be a simple "DON'T BUY BETH'S FO3! IT SUXXORS!!!1111" thing. I'm hoping that it will be a reliable source of information which can help people to decide whether or not they want to buy that game. The way you've been phrasing it before, it seemed like the site was going to focus solely on convincing people outright not to buy FO3, instead of merely showing them why they may not want to do so.

Apparently, you are contradicting yourself:

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.

If the focus of the site is, as you claim, not to convince people not to buy the game, but to inform and present the game as it is in an objective, unbiased way, there's no need to put up a new site, as the flood of previews, reviews and reports is inevitable with a project like this.

 

 

Lower sales of (a potentially unsatisfactory) FO3 could make the developers think about what they were doing wrong with the game.

So you are not content with just not getting a game you don't like. You want to impose yout view of what you think the game should be on the developers themselves, by having their product fail. This is fanaticism, in the worst possible way. Yay.