Anyone else hate the Nostalgia Argument?

That's what happens when the Nu-Fallout Bethesda fans can't come up with a half decent argument, they resort to the "nostalgia" excuse where their argument falls flat. It isn't "nostalgia" if I've played it in recent times.
 
MercenarySnake said:
That's what happens when the Nu-Fallout Bethesda fans can't come up with a half decent argument, they resort to the "nostalgia" excuse where their argument falls flat. It isn't "nostalgia" if I've played it in recent times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get why is it so hard to accept that the older Fallouts are better Fallouts.

I even made the following distinction:

- Better Fallout games: FO1, FO2, or FNV
- Better game: [Insert the one you enjoy the most out of 5 (or 7, if you dare)]
 
Okay, here's my perspective take on this. If anyone feels there are any incorrect parts, feel free to correct me. For the sake of this message, let's call the majority of the Bethesda fanbase "Group B", and the pro-Obsidian, old Fallout enthusiast that makes up most of NMA "Group A".

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's out of pure coincidence (I think) that at first, the better Fallouts just happens to be the older ones, and Group B keeps taking that as Group A saying "old = better". If Obsidian got their hands at Fallout and developed one for this generation, no one would cry "nostalgia".

The problem is that Group B doesn't want Obsidian to develop instead of Bethesda, out of some contrived obligation to protect their "oh-so-defenseless" favourite developers and because they prefer pure action to complex storytelling. Group B makes up the majority and the "popular opinion", preventing Obsidian from getting their chance, so Group A can't prove that Obsidian could do much better. Then after that, Group B are the same group to cry "nostalgia" at Group A. That's why we end up with Group A sites like NMA bitter at Group B's existence, because they criticise Group A for something (nostalgia in this case) that is a result of their own actions (indirectly not allowing Obsidian to prove it isn't nostalgia).

The best solution to combat this argument is that Obsidian must be allowed to develop a Fallout that can clearly stand in the modern age without losing any faithfulness or spirit from the original Fallouts. This will give Group A a game they want, and because this Fallout is modern, Group B will be unable to use the "nostalgia" argument anymore. The situation right now is that Bethesda will not allow Obsidian to develop the Fallout that will solve this argument, and therefore Group A is also bitter at Bethesda.

My personal view is that the nostalgia argument will always be pointless. It will come again every new generation. Once we enter the next one, Bethesda will make the next Fallout for Group B, and Group A will stick with Obsidian's last generation Fallout, and Group B will begin using the nostalgia argument, ALL OVER AGAIN. That is why it is an invalid argument - the only reason Group A happens to stick with older ones is because Obsidian aren't allowed to make the first one for the generation.

Essentially, if Fallout: New Vegas was made before Fallout 3, we wouldn't be having this argument at all.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Again, this is how I see it. If you feel any part of this is wrong, feel free to share, but note that I tried to be as unbiased as possible. :grin:
 
I agree, but honestly I think that Bethesda fans will defend Bethesda even if the games were older but shittier, probably saying how old games are better.
 
The whole argument is moot simply by observation.

Nostaliga is a term that you apply to something that is about events you can not really recreate or apply in modern times the same way as you did in the past. Like this romantic idea about the cold war, spies, or the cars from the 1950s. All of those events can't be recreated, not outside of reenactment, it's obvious that you can't just take everything from the 50s and throw it in 2016.

But, if we are talking about gameplay and view points, this holds not true, because they are not bound by such constraints. We are talking purely about aestetics and taste here. For example, a first person shooter is not inherently better or more modern compared to a turn based game. Infact, some of the OLDEST(!) games out there ... are first person shooters, and what surprise, open world games are also relatively old. Ultima, Elder Scrolls, and many more which I can't remember right now.

So, what has changed? Basically ONLY the graphics, the visuals. Not the gameplay or design that is behind it, outside of the obvious modernisations of course. But I am talking about the basics, I mean turn based games are still made today and some of them are extremely popular, you could simply look at ANY card game out there, which is basically turn based, or some role playing games.

What people do is arguing out of ignorance, they confuse the "visuals" of a game with "modern". It just happens that shooters and action games see a lot of focus. There is nothing that would hold a company with the correct funds from making a top down turn based game with cutting edge graphics. There is no technical limitation here. It is purely made by choice.

In other words, to say that you like Fallout 1 only because of nostalgia is comparable to make the claim that someone likes vanilla ice cream over chococalate only for nostalgia, because chocolate is the most popular taste out there.
 
Lucas9 said:
Hey, I commented on your post in Reddit (Sigourn here), and as it was to be expected, people reacted like they always do: "nostalgia", "people can't accept change", and so on...
Click to expand...
Hahaha I know, it was funny to watch. That subreddit angers me sometimes with their negligence, but it's at least positive to see new players picking up FNV and realising that 4 pales in comparison. They may not see it for the dumpster fire that it truly is, but that may come in time.
 
Crni Vuk said:
snip
Click to expand...

Best proof - Pillars of Eternity. Released in 2015, which was last year, but there are still people saying that nostalgia is the only reason why people thought that game was good. Some even say Pillars of Eternity was "overrated", you'll probably get a few laughs out of that.

All the old RPGs did have their flaws. Clunky interface design, ridiculous oversights, balance issues, etc. No games don't have flaws. Yet when modern games with AAA graphics do clunky interface design, ridiculous oversights and balance issues, no one will ever claim people who likes them are being "nostalgic".
 
arroyoasshat said:
Hahaha I know, it was funny to watch. That subreddit angers me sometimes with their negligence, but it's at least positive to see new players picking up FNV and realising that 4 pales in comparison. They may not see it for the dumpster fire that it truly is, but that may come in time.
Click to expand...
That sub is so strange. During the first month or so the game was out, many were disappointed. You had people that were getting thousands of upvotes begging people to stop critiquing the game. They actively WANT to be an echo chamber.
 
FranklinHorrigan said:
That sub is so strange. During the first month or so the game was out, many were disappointed. You had people that were getting thousands of upvotes begging people to stop critiquing the game. They actively WANT to be an echo chamber.
Click to expand...

*Say something negative but true about Fallout 4*
*Another person agrees*
"OMG STOP CIRCLE JERKING"

*thousands of posts about how awesome Fallout 4 is and how Todd Howard's dick is larger than Long Dick Johnson's*
"BEST GAME EVAR, YOU HATE THE GAME BECAUSE YOU ARE A HIPSTER"

I always thought 4chan's hate on Reddit was overreacted, but damn, some redditors are really missing players in the pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top