Lulz inbound!

[H]

GameShark

Shacknews

Joystiq

Kotaku

IGN

Destructoid

1UP

Gamespot

Team Xbox

GameSpy

Games Radar

All of them are full of all kinds of PR nonsense and quite amusing to read.

 

Here is my personal favorite, courtesy of Destructoid:

Not only were there regular Ghouls (humans who've had their brains fully deteriorated by radioactivity), but there were also Glowing Ghouls who have fully absorbed the radioactivity and effectively heal their brethren by a radioactive burst of curative fluids. Narsty.

Stupid is a better word.

[Pop]

Odd that they're keeping the level 20 cap.

[mkreku]

I thought the Kotaku one was pretty interesting. It's surprising to see how a player who is new to the Fallout universe reacts to Fallout 3, since many of his reactions sound almost like the ones I had when I first played Fallout!

 

Everything I saw about this game was impressive, but what really got my attention was its overall art style. The optimistic fifties design juxtaposed against the destroyed landscape is a great choice and is seen everywhere from the HUD to the atomic design of Vault 101. Seeing it sprinkled around the world gave me the same feeling I got the first time I saw the art-deco wonders of BioShock. It's nostalgic yet at the same time seems so fresh and new because we rarely see that style of design in modern games, especially FPSs. It also gave the design team a chance to inject the game with a subtle humor that is evident throughout, even seeping its way into the dialog choices and sound.

[Rhomal]

Hoping for the best, but...

[Tigranes]

Right now I'm wondering whether to just not click and give them hits, or compare them and point out how so obviously preorchestrated and devoid of substance they are. It's pretty obvious that Bethesda told them went to release all the previews, and really, what to tell/show them for those previews. Also, considering how the entire game journalism biz simultaneously asploded in fanjoy at the mere sight of Oblivion (and refused to admit its flaws for about 2 years after release)...

 

Are there even any new facts about the game? The glowing ghouls aren't new, but yeah, they make no sense, they'll probably glow like hell and make the game look just like high fantasy, and it won't really make the gameplay better..

[mkreku]

Right now I'm wondering whether to just not click and give them hits, or compare them and point out how so obviously preorchestrated and devoid of substance they are. It's pretty obvious that Bethesda told them went to release all the previews, and really, what to tell/show them for those previews.

Pretty lame thing to write. So they're obviously "preorchestrated" and "devoid of substance"? Why not click them FIRST and read them and THEN share your opinion with us? I'm sure your opinion would be more appreciated AFTER you'd actually informed yourself on them.

 

Not that it matters, since what you wrote in your post makes it pretty clear that you've already made up your mind (why give them clicks, right?).

 

And YES, publishers set a time and a date when you're allowed to post things! If you obey these rules, you'll get invited to the next press showing. Is that somehow related to the quality of the previews? Or to the quality of the game even..? I don't think so. But it's way ... better than coming to this board and getting NOTHING from the developers themselves, isn't it? Or maybe you think "our game is going to be tyte" is more informative and filled with substance than previews?

 

Since this was a press showing, all the previews will read and tell the same thing. Kind of natural since they all were shown the same things. But you know what? Every publisher does this. You might as well replace "Bethesda" in your post with any other publishing name out there. They all play by the same rules.

 

Edited by SteveThaiBinh

[Tigranes]

Or maybe you think "our game is going to be tyte" is more informative and filled with substance than previews?

 

Well, one word says a thousand things.

 

Anyway, I wasn't targeting just Bethesda, not for this, anyway. I'm just sick of 'previews' that regurgitate over and over again, and either rarely criticise anything, or if they do, criticise always along the same lines - its the same discursive pattern again and again. Some reviews are exempt to this rule, but here, I'll show you. FIrst one on the list was Gameshark:

 

1. Same char-gen / You are Special stuff we knew about before.

2. "Unlike Oblivion, for instance, you're not able to see and do everything in a single play through." Heard this before, only real example remains Megaton.

3. Karma. Old.

4. Companions. Actually, just dogmeat.

5. BOS vs Evil Super Mutants!

6. VATS.

7. So, it's awesome! We can't wait!

 

Notice a) the complete lack of any new details that nevertheless somehow justifies a slew of new previews; it's as if previews come out dependent on press releases of publishers, and not the actual info. Why do this if there's not really anything new to say? All that happens, whether intentional or not, is to keep the hype machine rolling and advertise the game. b) the lack of any criticism or substantiation. i.e. the only examples given to back up very general comments (e.g.2) are still the one or two things shown by the devs. Of course, previewers can't help it if Bethesda can't/won't reveal any more yet, but there is nothing like "we only have like 2 examples so far, but that's what they promise and we will see what else they can come up with." There is no criticism, or apprehension that the kind of crap they gave us with 'Radiant AI' and 'Deeper conversations' in their last game may crop up again. There have never been any comments about the plastic, oil-sheen ugly character models. There are no questions asked about whether super mutants are just 'evil' or there is going to be more depth there.

 

You can't blame a game site for doing hte best with what they are given or trying to cultivate good relationships with the game makers, but I don't like the fact that they schedule their previews to press releases and NOT whether new info has been released, because it doesn't really do much for the consumer. I don't like the fact that they fail to ask hard questions that will very much be pertinent to the game experience at release, and just report whatever they've heard, sometimes with voluntary, additional hyperbolics of glee (to be fair, not really the case in the Gameshark one.)

 

Of course I'm generalising and there are some good reviews, or decent reviews, out there. Finally, I'd like to clarify that I haven't made up my mind on FO3 as a game; that will happen when I've played it. I have some concerns but there is also excitement. So it's got nothing to do with me wanting to bash FO3 or Bethesda. I'd just like to see more game journalists go in there and ask some questions that aren't "why is your game so wonderful", or at least ask the questions to themselves, when they write, and not write if there's nothing but regurgitating of old stuff to say. Now, I probably touched a nerve with my first post and I apologise for that; now I've explained myself properly (as I should have initially), if you want to call me up on things I don't understand, I'll be happy to correct myself.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Briosafreak's Fallout blog has lots of excerpts from the previews. It does seem to be a lot of stuff we knew before, and the enthusiasm with which they write after having seen nothing new is just a little surreal, I think. Perhaps when gameplay videos come out the enthusiasm will be more infectious, I don't know.

[Pop]

I like how people talk about PR pushes like they've never happened before. Even with so many different game sites it doesn't do to say "well, it's covered" when something's already been featured somewhere else. Every gaming outlet has an "exclusive" with "new screenshots" or whatever. If it wasn't that way the entirety of game press would be Game Informer and EGM. They're a part of the industry. We can moan about how awful Oblivion was but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people bought it and a lot of people liked it, and as such Bethsoft = site hits.

 

As for the fawning in the blogs, one, they're blogs and have no real standards for the way they ought to behave. Two, they're not Codex-type gamers. A gaming blog run by NMA types would elicit the kind of scorn that Pitchfork Media only dreams about, because let's face it, that sort has no enthusiasm for gaming at all, in the general sense. Can't you just imagine the headlines? "Another ****ty GTA game on the way a bloo bla bloo", "Bioshock sequel to signal end of civilization a bloo bla bloo" etc. etc.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Pop

[skuld1]

Anyway, I wasn't targeting just Bethesda, not for this, anyway.

 

It's nice to say this after the fact... but from the wording you used, I think that most people would read your initial post as targeting Bethesda. Bethesda is the only company you mention, you mention Oblivion...

 

edit: spelling errors

Edited April 11, 2008 by skuld1

[Tel Aviv]

...frankly, all we have is Bethesda's word that "intelligence" and "charisma" will play as concrete a role in your day-to-day successes and failures as stuff like "strength" and "agility."

 

Boo!

[Meshugger]

After reading some of those previews, well...It seems like Fallout 3 is to Fallout 1&2, as Alien vs. Predator(the movie) was to either Predator or Alien.

 

 

*sigh* Why do i even bother? :sad:

[Tigranes]

It's nice to say this after the fact... but from the wording you used, I think that most people would read your initial post as targeting Bethesda. Bethesda is the only company you mention, you mention Oblivion...

 

Well, we were discussing Bethesda. But if you want me to make it crystal clear:

1. Many many game companies do this, and it is indeed the norm now; Bethesda is by no means the big evil meanie in an industry of nicey nice angels.

2. Of course, that really doesn't absolve Bethesda or any of these other companies from anything; every single one, individually, to a greater or lesser degree, are guilty.

 

Hopefully I've made myself a bit more clear. Of course, anything you want to call me up for, feel free to do so.

 

Anyway, the Bethdevs had hinted last month that the hype machine will start rolling soon and we'll start getting more concrete info. I hope that is the case, give us something to read.

[Spider]

The fault doesn't lie with Bethesda (or other game companies). The way they are marketing their games is basically the same methods that any company uses. I'd more blame the gaming press that keeps falling for it.

 

The whole problem with the gaming press is that they're so dependent on the gaming industry for everything. It's the gaming industry that buys the ads and it's them you need to go to for content. Piss off a major publisher and you risk losing a lot of ad revenue and stop getting invited to these preview things (or getting review copies). Though I think it's more of a perceived threat than an outspoken one.

 

I don't know how it is in other specialist press, but I can imagine it's fairly similar. There simply is no magazine or website that is big enough that they can simply tell the gaming industry to stuff it if they don't like what they write. Some mags or sites are better than others of course, but the problem is still there.

 

What Bethesda is doing is simply showing what they consider being the best parts of their game. And since the gaming press is not very critical, that's all that gets shown.

 

(I personally think previews suffer worse from all of this than reviews. Sure, scores are typically a bit inflated when it comes to games from a major publisher, but if you take the time to read the text you usually get a better idea about what problems a game may suffer from)

Edited April 11, 2008 by Spider

[Pop]

After reading some of those previews, well...It seems like Fallout 3 is to Fallout 1&2, as Alien vs. Predator(the movie) was to either Predator or Alien.

 

 

*sigh* Why do i even bother? :sad:

That's not really a discredit until you take Predator out of the equation.

[~Di]

It's on my "must buy" list. I'm looking forward to it, and expect to enjoy it for the game it is rather than compare it with the old classics.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

That's my Di!

 

I must admit I'm open minded, games move forwards... I don't see why people can't take FO3 for what it is, opposed to thinking with the dreamy eyed memories of years gone by.

[Slowtrain]

lol. Remember those Oblivion previews: The best crpg EVAR!

 

 

 

Lifecycle of a major computer game release (Now known as the Oblivion Cycle):

 

Previews: All press gushes and praises upcoming release as the best game ever.

 

Reviews: Press gives super top of the line scores to said game, notes a few minor faults in game.

 

Post-release: 6 months later press recants super great scores and notes that game had a lot of serious flaws that they failed for some mysterious reason to notice during the review.

 

Pre-release for next game from same major publisher: Press relases numerous articles detailing faults of previous major game and goes into great detail how those faults wil not be repeated by this next game which promises to be, wait for it now, the BEST GAME EVAR!

 

 

wash rinse repeat. ad nauseum. etc, and so on.

[Dark_Raven]

Hoping for the best, but...

All hope is lost.

[Slowtrain]

Hoping for the best, but...

All hope is lost.

 

 

Come now. There is always hope. I mean if 10,000 monkeys jumping on 10,000 typewriters for 10,000 years can eventually produce the works of Shakespeare, then surely Todd Howard and team can eventually fling enough poo against the wall to make something moderately interesting.

[Dark_Raven]

Now if they hired Tim Cain and some others whoi worked on the previous Fallouts, than there would be hope. But I see none sadly.

[Tigranes]

Something confuses me here, guys. If I am criticising what we know of FO3 so far, and anticipate it but only with reservation, does that mean I am comparing it to previous games, or thinking Bethesda have betrayed the fans, or I'm using rose tinted glasses?

 

I don't see why people can't take FO3 for what it is

 

I do do that. I take it for what it is - a spiritual, distant, sequel of a game. But even if I completely ignored that and treated it as "Post Apocalyptic Game Nothing To Do With Fallout", things like bullet-time VATS make me feel I just may not find the game very enjoyable. Which would be a pity, because I would love to enjoy another postapoc RPG. I don't think it's right to link every criticism or worry about FO3 with, say, a Codexian worldview.

[Starwars]

And I would also say that I feel it's hardly strange why people do compare it to the older games, it is supposed to be a sequel after all. People have expectations of sequels, as it should be.

 

And like Tigranes, even if I strip away my expectations and wants for a Fallout sequel, the game *still* doesn't look particularly to my liking. Now, start combining those two things with a general distrust of Bethesda, and what they have done to their very own Elder Scrolls series and all the hype we saw before Oblivion.

 

But yep, the most *annoying* thing about Fallout 3 has IMO been the awful previews. Not just the general amount of slobbering (which I don't like, I'm sure even these people could find critiques as well if they would bother to look) but the amount of factual errors and the fact that different previews actually say different things about the same aspects of the game, based on the same showings of the game. One previewer says this, one previewer says that.

I know a lot of people don't like the NMA/Codexians/whatever, but I am so happy that they're here for this game, since there at least seems to be some discussion on what Bethesda is doing is "right" (or whatever you're gonna call it), some of which actually makes its way into magazine previews and whatnot. Sure, the "rabidness" can get much sometimes, but not nearly enough to balance out the general slobbering over Bethesda.

 

Like CrashGirl pointed out, I fully expect that this game will get top-notch reviews. And when Bethesda announces their next game (which I guess will be TES5), *then* the reviewers/previewers suddenly notices the game flaws of Fallout 3, but never fear, because in TES5 they will all be gone.

The gaming press, you can keep it.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Starwars

[Moatilliatta]

...things like bullet-time VATS make me feel I just may not find the game very enjoyable.

This might show that I haven't actually followed Fallout 3 much, but why is VATS bullet-time? I thought that VATS was just pause-for-shooting.

Also why would you dislike it? Personally I find it to be the most reasonable realtime mirroring of fallout's gory crotch-shooting gameplay gameplay (if we ignore that Bethesda isn't willing to put in crotch-shooting).

[Spider]

VATS is pause-for-shooting. But after you've said what to do, parts of your actions (if I get it right, the last parts of it all, when you hit whoever you're shooting at) will play out in slow mo.