Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360???

[213374U]

And more importantly, why should anyone take it upon themselves to babysit those people?

[aVENGER]

How many people really run out and buy a game they know nothing about based solely on it's name?

 

You'd be surprised. I personally saw a bunch people on various other (non-Fallout related) forums getting pretty excited when someone mentioned that Fallout 3 is being made. After others pointed out what kind of a game they can actually expect the excitement levels dropped drastically.

 

And if they do rush out and buy games without knowing more than the name, why would they visit this supposed "anti-hype" site?

 

Because others can point it out to them in time with a single link. That's why a central, well designed and easily accessible site is needed.

 

Whether a particular game is a "real sequel" is entirely a matter of opinion. What exactly is a "real Fallout fan"? If someone loved the original, but doesn't have a problem with Bethesda making something very different, does that mean they aren't part of the "real Fallout fanbase"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a pretty good question. While I certainly can't speak for the entire fallout fanbase, my personal option is that if Bethesda simply chose to make a non-canonical spin-off game based on the fallout universe and call it something other than FO3 most people wouldn't even bother protesting. However, if they call their game Fallout 3 people will have certain expectations and if those are not fulfilled then they clearly wouldn't be pleased about it.

[Vic]

Hmm, something interesting seems to be happening on the major Fallout sites at the moment. Apparently, NMA, DAC and RPGCodex are trying to unite and create an "anti-hype" site for Bethesda's FO3. The goal seems to be informing any potential buyers what it is that they'll actually get. As one of the idea's initiators said: It worked before for Interplay's FO:BOS and it could work again for Bethsoft's FO3.

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Vic

[Musopticon?]

Reminds me of the guy on the old Ion Storm boards who refused to believe DX:IW and T:DS were sequels based solely on the fact that they didn't have numbers in the title. It's petty whining from people who refuse to accept they didn't get things the way they wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Grimoire?

 

For the record, I agree. Hades, you are going to buy it anyway.

[aVENGER]

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.

 

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.

 

 

Also, its doubtful how much of an impact internet hype (or anti-hype) would have on sales of a popular piece of media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but doing something is always better than doing nothing.

[Vic]

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.

 

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

 

Also, its doubtful how much of an impact internet hype (or anti-hype) would have on sales of a popular piece of media.

 

 

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.

[aVENGER]

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.

 

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.

 

Indeed. How noble it is to plan to bash something before you actually know anything concrete about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is it the fan's fault that Bethesda's been so tight lipped about the game besides giving out ambiguous quotes like: "Well, turn-based combat and isometric view, that's just not something we do well."? When new official information becomes available I'm sure it will be posted as well. The difference is, it won't be sugar-coned.

[Vic]

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.

 

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.

 

 

Indeed. How noble it is to plan to bash something before you actually know anything concrete about it.

 

Is it the fan's fault that Bethesda's been so tight lipped about the game besides giving out ambiguous quotes like: "Well, turn-based combat and isometric view, that's just not something we do well."? When new official information becomes available I'm sure it will be posted as well. The difference is, it won't be sugar-coned.

 

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.

[Hell Kitty]

I personally saw a bunch people on various other (non-Fallout related) forums getting pretty excited when someone mentioned that Fallout 3 is being made. After others pointed out what kind of a game they can actually expect the excitement levels dropped drastically.

 

That isn't proof that they'd buy it without knowing anything about it, especially since Bethesda themselves haven't revealed anything yet. I think it's more likely that if their expectations weren't lowered based on the comments on that forum, they would have been lowered once information is released, which they could find in any number of magazines or internet sites.

 

Because others can point it out to them in time with a single link. That's why a central, well designed and easily accessible site is needed.

 

What reason do people have to visit, for example, thetruthaboutfallout3.org over bethsoft.com/fallout3 or gamespot.com/pcreviews/fallout3? What would cause them to visit the former if they never ever visit the latter?

 

If they really want to find out info with a single link, they'd probably be better off visiting wikipedia instead of a page made by self-appointed "true fallout fans".

 

my personal option is that if Bethesda simply chose to make a non-canonical spin-off game based on the fallout universe and call it something other than FO3 most people wouldn't even bother protesting. However, if they call their game Fallout 3 people will have certain expectations and if those are not fulfilled then they clearly wouldn't be pleased about it.

 

Ultimately I think this is a really petty complaint, and if this new website offers stuff like this, then it won't be offering anything new. Bethesda could call the game Fallout 3 or Fallout: [subtitle], they could refer to it as canon or something else, it won't change the game itself, it will only change the precious feelings of the so-called "true fallout fans" safe in the belief that "their" universe and rules system and whatever else hasn't been tampered with.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Hell Kitty

[aVENGER]

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.

 

It depends. The fans were primarily concerned about the blatant ignoring of some major Fallout canon facts by FO:BOS and many reviewers noted that as well, referencing the fan outcry in the process.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You generalize the Fallout fan base far too much. It's true that there is a more radical fraction but not all agree with such views. There are some people who even suggested DoS attacks against Bethesda's servers and spreading false propaganda about the game, but they were ultimately overruled by the more reasonable bunch in favor of the informational approach.

[alanschu]

Is it the fan's fault that Bethesda's been so tight lipped about the game besides giving out ambiguous quotes like: "Well, turn-based combat and isometric view, that's just not something we do well."? When new official information becomes available I'm sure it will be posted as well. The difference is, it won't be sugar-coned.

 

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.

[Vic]

You generalize the Fallout fan base far too much. It's true that there is a more radical fraction but not all agree with such views. There are some people who even suggested DoS attacks against Bethesda's servers and spreading false propaganda about the game, but they were ultimately overruled by the more reasonable bunch in favor of the informational approach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Vic

[aVENGER]

What reason do people have to visit, for example, thetruthaboutfallout3.org over bethsoft.com/fallout3 or gamespot.com/pcreviews/fallout3?

 

Simple, it could provide them with an alternative view of the game, with pure facts bereft of any deceitful PR lingo.

 

Bethesda could call the game Fallout 3 or Fallout: [subtitle], they could refer to it as canon or something else, it won't change the game itself, it will only change the precious feelings of the so-called "true fallout fans" safe in the belief that "their" universe and rules system and whatever else hasn't been tampered with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

IMO, a non-conventional spin-off game set in the Fallout universe (i.e. a Deux Ex style hybrid FPS/RPG) but called differently would certainly cause less fan outrage than a bastardized Fallout 3. The magic of numbers and the very nature of sequels often raise the people's expectations to great heights.

[Vic]

What reason do people have to visit, for example, thetruthaboutfallout3.org over bethsoft.com/fallout3 or gamespot.com/pcreviews/fallout3?

 

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.

[alanschu]

I personally saw a bunch people on various other (non-Fallout related) forums getting pretty excited when someone mentioned that Fallout 3 is being made. After others pointed out what kind of a game they can actually expect the excitement levels dropped drastically.

 

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

[Vic]

I personally saw a bunch people on various other (non-Fallout related) forums getting pretty excited when someone mentioned that Fallout 3 is being made. After others pointed out what kind of a game they can actually expect the excitement levels dropped drastically.

 

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.

[alanschu]

Ah yes, I forgot

[Vic]

Ah yes, I forgot

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

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!

Edited January 26, 2007 by Vic

[mkreku]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most reviewers have a genre that they're particularly good at (guess which mine is..), and they get assigned with the task of reviewing most of the games in said genre. But Vic is right: the earlier parts in a series has NO impact on the final score of a new product, unless it is an expansion or something. We judge each game on their own merits, no matter how far off from the previous installment in the series (if it's a sequel).

 

The only thing that happens is that I usually mention that this new game either continues in the same treadmarks as its predecessor or that it breaks new ground (or something equally cheesy). If the game is good, the game is good, no matter how different it is from its predecessor. If it's bad, then it's bad. Nothing any predecessor can fix.

 

Judging a new game based on similarity to old games would be moronic and tell you nothing about the quality of the game at hand.

[alanschu]

Sadly, the people there seem to be more interested into bashing the hardcore Fallout fans' outlook than discussing the idea itself.

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2007 by alanschu

[Hell Kitty]

What reason do people have to visit, for example, thetruthaboutfallout3.org over bethsoft.com/fallout3 or gamespot.com/pcreviews/fallout3?

 

Simple, it could provide them with an alternative view of the game, with pure facts bereft of any deceitful PR lingo.

 

I agree with alanschu in that I expect it to be "laced with arsenic", rather than the unbaised source of factual information they might claim or hope to be.

 

The magic of numbers and the very nature of sequels often raise the people's expectations to great heights.

 

I agree with that, and think for example that many people who hate DX:IW (especially those who decided to hate it long before it was released) might have liked the game had it been an set in an original world with new characters, but there really isn't any way to what effect the title has.

 

"True Fallout fans" might like to think their complaints had an effect on the sales of FOBOS, but the fact is that it was a rather dull hack'n'slash game, and probably did as well as it was ever going to do regardless of the name.

[aVENGER]

We judge each game on their own merits, no matter how far off from the previous installment in the series (if it's a sequel).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[aVENGER]

And aVENGER, the people here are very much bashing the idea.  You're just not seeing it.

 

That's not really the impression I got.

 

I guess we can look forward to an influx of Codex posters for the next little while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh, no worries, they don't bite (well most of them anyway).

[Gorth]

As long as they deliver a game that has plenty of brothels, gratuitous sex, violence, gore, 50'es retro sci-fi feel viable alternative ways of solving problems, I won't object too much. What scares me is the writing capabilities and design decisions that went into Oblivion. It just doesn't inspire a lot of confidence yet. It would be more fun to whine if they had actually revealed anything about the game besides it's not going to be "not what we do best" or however that quote went (almost as ominous as a death threat).

[aVENGER]

I agree with alanschu in that I expect it to be "laced with arsenic", rather than the unbaised source of factual information they might claim or hope to be.

 

Heh, who's being biased now? I say we wait and see.

 

I agree with that, and think for example that many people who hate DX:IW (especially those who decided to hate it long before it was released) might have liked the game had it been an set in an original world with new characters, but there really isn't any way to what effect the title has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, who knows, if Bethesda had marketed and eventually published the game that they now call Fallout 3 as a stand alone post-apocalyptic RPG completely separate from the Fallout brand, perhaps some of the hardcore FO fans might have even liked it.