Spite? Is that what you call it when one observes the operation of a company and decides not to support it? Interesting.

Wow, the "operation of a company"? Are they whipping their employees to death and using child labor or something? I mean, I could understand if you wanted to "make a statement" under those circumstances. But refusing to purchase a game you'd most likely enjoy because the devs are asses in their boards and previous products were buggy (hello, NWN2?) is not only spiteful - it's also childish.

 

 

A couple thoughts on this:

 

1) Your primary disagreement appears to be on my criteria. If so, we've got no real argument, because I can't sit here and say that my criteria are the only criteria that should matter to you or anyone else. All I can say is that they matter to me. I feel that not being responsive or dismissive to fans who have paid for your game and are experiencing problems is not a good way to run a business. I feel releasing an extremely buggy game that requires 5 patches and still has major problems and yet having no qualms about collecting peoples money on said game and STILL being dismissive about people's problems is even worse. Perhaps you do not agree. That's totally fine. I'm not in any way trying to convince you that you should agree.

 

2) I'm not in any way trying to say this is some sort of super important issue that is going to affect the world. All I am saying is that it is my money, and I don't have enough of it to do everything I would like to do, and I am going to make decisions about how to spend that money. I don't need STALKER: CS to survive or even just to be happy or amused, therefore I have the luxury of being able to turn my back on it and walk away. I'm quite sure GSC and THQ don't care at all. But I'm also quite sure my $50 can go somewhere else to something else I enjoy.

 

3) Using highly exaggerated and ludicrous examples such as "whipping their employees to death and using child labor" doesn't help your argument. Its is a poor tactic that just makes your entire presentation seem rather weak and overwrought. You would be better off sticking closer to my original point of companies not listening to their customers making for bad business.

1) Your primary disagreement appears to be on my criteria. If so, we've got no real argument, because I can't sit here and say that my criteria are the only criteria that should matter to you or anyone else. All I can say is that they matter to me. I feel that not being responsive or dismissive to fans who have paid for your game and are experiencing problems is not a good way to run a business. I feel releasing an extremely buggy game that requires 5 patches and still has major problems and yet having no qualms about collecting peoples money on said game and STILL being dismissive about people's problems is even worse.

That sounds nice and all, save for the fact that they did actually listen to the fans and got their act together regarding bugfixing in CS. You are not purchasing CS (yet) not because it's a terminally buggy product, which it isn't, or because the devs aren't fixing the issues it has, which they are, but simply because you have personal beefs with them. And that, no matter how you want to disguise it, is childish.

 

 

3) Using highly exaggerated and ludicrous examples such as "whipping their employees to death and using child labor" doesn't help your argument. Its is a poor tactic that just makes your entire presentation seem rather weak and overwrought. You would be better off sticking closer to my original point of companies not listening to their customers making for bad business.

It makes my presentation as weak as trying to paint yourself as holding some sort of high moral ground makes yours weak. "Making a statement" and "in good conscience" sure are impressive expressions and seem to add strength to whatever you are trying to say, but in this case, it's just a load of hot air.

Edited September 23, 200817 yr by random n00b

That sounds nice and all, save for the fact that they did actually listen to the fans and got their act together regarding bugfixing in CS. You are not purchasing CS (yet) not because it's a terminally buggy product, which it isn't, or because the devs aren't fixing the issues it has, which they are, but simply because you have personal beefs with them. And that, no matter how you want to disguise it, is childish.

 

Childish? I'm simply trying to make an informed decision of a potential purchase; my previous experience with that company is obviously going to play a large role in determining when and if I do business with them again. My previous experience with them was pretty unsatisfactory; its going to take more than one bug-free well supported release to convince me to spend my money with them again. It is a start though.

 

Odd defintion of childish.

 

 

It makes my presentation as weak as trying to paint yourself as holding some sort of high moral ground makes yours weak. "Making a statement" and "in good conscience" sure are impressive expressions and seem to add strength to whatever you are trying to say, but in this case, it's just a load of hot air.

 

 

That's a fair point. "In good conscience" does have a moral ring to it that I didn't intend. So let me clarify: I'm not saying its a moral issue, neccessarily. I'm just doing what I believe is the right thing, and that right thing is not to reward a company that does a poor job by buying their product.

Interview: Pete Hines on Fallout 3 Mods and other stuff like the over reliance on showing combat instead of the rest.

 

I don't know if there is anything new in there for you guys but I found it interesting.

Guys, guys, relax. It was a joke. Fallout 3 won't actually feature any text. Geez, lighten up.

That sig is going down, man.

If anything, Fallout 3 might be saved by its mods. If it winds up sucking, which is something I can't tell at this point.

Now, Llyranor, I would never harm Nick in such a fashion. You, yes, but not Nick.

If anything, Fallout 3 might be saved by its mods. If it winds up sucking, which is something I can't tell at this point.

Nothing is going to save that waste of developers time and resources.

Except vampires.

What about homosexual romance options?

 

That would be a first.

If anything, Fallout 3 might be saved by its mods. If it winds up sucking, which is something I can't tell at this point.

 

It is a horrible abomination, FYI.

 

Folk probably took for granted that every time we make a game, there

Edited September 25, 200817 yr by Jaesun

Pete Hines intreview @Shacknews

 

He also talks about DRM (!!!), so what are you waiting for? Go read it!

What about homosexual romance options?

 

The original Fallouts had them -or at least Fallout 2 did, it's been awhile since I played Fallout- so I would hope they continued the tradition or at least had a logical in-game explanation of why it was excluded.

yeah my female character and Mrs Bishop

I wouldn't want to have sex in the Fallout world in the first place - for hygienic reasons alone.

STDs would run wild plus the mutations of body parts from radiation would make any romance undesirable.

Ah, so THATS why you're so bitter.

yeah my female character and Mrs Bishop

Oh no, no. Your male character and Mr. Bishop.