WorstUsernameEver said:
Also their review is still there. And yeah, as far as I know they were the only site to break the embargo.
So no valid excuse from that angle, no matter how much shills might like it.
Bethesda allegedly pulls negative Fallout: New Vegas review
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
Also their review is still there. And yeah, as far as I know they were the only site to break the embargo.
So no valid excuse from that angle, no matter how much shills might like it.
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I don't blame beth one bit for this. I blame the company that let them be pushed around and the industry itself.
If I could smother a poor review of something I was trying to sale just by complaining to the publisher I would go for it.
Its the publisher that needs to grow a spine and stand up for itself.
If I could smother a poor review of something I was trying to sale just by complaining to the publisher I would go for it.
Its the publisher that needs to grow a spine and stand up for itself.
Beth is a publisher. From what I know.Texas Renegade said:
Depends what we see as fail. I mean it goes without saying that when it comes to a Fallout sequel for me it falls somewhat short, yes ~ I assume for you as well. That has been discussed to death already. But from a marketing point of view I think Fallout 3 was a huge success. And I now start to doubt that its a "one hit wonder" (vanilla ice anyone ?). Because Oblivion proved already to be a huge success despite having flaws as RPG game so big that you can hide a whole terrorist faction inside without a chance to find them. Granted Oblivoin was even more bland then F3 but it was clearly possible to see the similarities so Oblivion with guns is somewhat accurate for F3. Now thing is both games seem to have sold extremly well (if you believe Bethesda). So either they have extrem luck or the consumers really buy everything when the hype is big enough ~ which is much more likely.Lexx said:
So well ... as sad as it sounds it might be possible that we see a Fallout 4 that is just like Fallout 3. All we can really hope for is that the Enclave THIS time died for once and all >_< ... or does anyone think for a President Eden MK II ? Yaay ... : /
sea said:
To be honest, I see the opposite.
I see people who, having been introduced to the franchise by Fallout 3, being somewhat bored and disillusioned by New Vegas. Conversely, those who were clamoring over each other to cast the first stone at Bethesda for squandering their license of Fallout would end up loving New Vegas.
It's really just which side of the fence you're on: Do you love Interplay/Black Isle/Obsidian or do you love Bethesda?
Nalano said:
Heh. Maybe online. I doubt joe average gamer cares.
Anarchosyn said:
A lot of the books that were in both Morrowind and Oblivion came from Daggerfall. The team that worked on Daggerfall is long gone, and more's the pity, because the main quest in that game was very well done. It's a bit challenging to give a character personality when they only get 4 or 5 paragraphs of text total, but they managed it. Akorithi was a snobby bitch, Morgiah was a whore, Gothryd was a power-lusting weasel, the King of Worms was unscrupulous (he makes a return in Oblivion, fully neutered by that writing team), Brisienna was purposeful, etc etc. All of this was obvious from the VERY limited text you get as you move through the quests.
Morrowind had an interesting main quest and interesting setting. I don't think it was even as good as Daggerfall, but it was at least somewhat unique in geography, architecture, and mood. The culture of the Dunmer was very well done. People owned slaves. People worshiped their ancestors. Etc etc.
Oblivion ended up being single player World of Warcraft. Yawn. The Thieves Guild and Brotherhood quests were interesting, even though the Brotherhood of Oblivion was the start of Bethesda's "let's stick dead bodies all over the place, we're so h4rdcor3!!" spree. The main quest was ridiculous. No one in the entire game had a personality, and the game world had no personality either.
So, in summary...Bethesda IS getting worse. They've tried to mask it by replacing some of the Wikipedia-style dialogue with actual sentences, but refuse is always going to smell like refuse no matter how much you try to perfume it up.
Anarchosyn
Still Mildly Glowing
lmao said:
Yeah, I can get behind that. There has been a noticeable decline in detail as the technology has grown. 'Course, I've always felt Bethesda was kind of a basement, cottage job that fell ass backwards into being an industry big wig against the odds. Hell, they can't even code ladder integration into their games.
Anyhoo, I missed out on Arena, Daggerfall, Battlespire and Redguard. I was mainly rocking SSR Gold Box games, adventure titles and old school first person RPGs like Bard's Tale and Wizardry. I kind of wish I had gotten to rock Daggerfall in the heyday but I believe I was turned off by the bugs (or doing too much acid, one of the two
) .. I knew some of the books hailed from that era but I didn't realize a vast majority were imported into Morrowind (makes sense -- I thought it odd that none of the other writing in the game was up to those standards).So to clarify, this Dan Hsu stuff is NOT related to the attack of the fanboy review?
(I actually dig all the anonymous mudslinging going on right now, like with the Mythic and EA blogs. Drama is fun!)
Tell me you don't really believe this. Or maybe I'm wrong, and Daikatana was the best selling game of all time. And APB. And Too Human. And MadWorld. And soon the new Final Fantasy.
As I recall he didn't say it was an issue of ability, and also: who cares?
(I actually dig all the anonymous mudslinging going on right now, like with the Mythic and EA blogs. Drama is fun!)
crni vuk said:
Tell me you don't really believe this. Or maybe I'm wrong, and Daikatana was the best selling game of all time. And APB. And Too Human. And MadWorld. And soon the new Final Fantasy.
anarchosyn said:
As I recall he didn't say it was an issue of ability, and also: who cares?
so you think hype does not sell games ? Did I said its true for every game ? Com on if anything can sell even crap games then it IS hype. See the Call of Duty series.
*Edit since when did Daikatana had a great "marketing" behind it ? TV comercials even ? Interesting is that Bethesda took their time to even make a comercial for the German TV ! Now I dont see many games doing that over here. Anno 1404 was the last I remember. And Halo maybe. I dont want to imagine what that kind of marketing even costs ...
*Edit since when did Daikatana had a great "marketing" behind it ? TV comercials even ? Interesting is that Bethesda took their time to even make a comercial for the German TV ! Now I dont see many games doing that over here. Anno 1404 was the last I remember. And Halo maybe. I dont want to imagine what that kind of marketing even costs ...
crni vuk said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your English, but uh, right here:
Hype helps sells some games, but I certainly wouldn't call the Call of Duty series "crap". Maybe you're not into FPSs, but they're very solid (save for hackers).
As for Daikatana, it may not have had commercials (that I know of), but you can't say it didn't have a ton of marketing buzz behind it, even (especially) before the "bitch" ads.
solid ? Call of duty is the incarnation of "make it mainstream" or "boring". The time when CoD was interesting is long gone and yes I am in to shooters. I just think there are no good ones out there anymore. Not in the sense of like with the first Mohaa, Cod and a few more. Actualy I ve been a shooter nut playing the sh** out of games like Blood, Blood 2, Duke 3D, Quacke 3, Unreal99 and a lot more. But at some point you just have enough of storming the Pacific, killing the axis at some beach or that. I am not sure right now if CoD has auto healing ? But a lot of shooters and other games as well have that now ... which I find one of the worst inventions ever.
I think without a high marketing games like CoD would not even sell half of the numbers it does usualy. But thast my oppinion. Its just interesting to see that maybe 10% of the costs are actualy spend on the programming and making of the game while the rest goes purely just in to the advertising. I wish it would be a bit more even. You know 40 - 60 maybe. Or something like that.
Yeah I might have sound a bit strange when saying the part about people buying everything. But you know the exception proves the rule. And there are a lot of crapy games which sold very well cause of marketing alone ~ almost. Even I got tricked by Bethesda believing their game Oblivion was the best the RPG world could offer. Luckily I never bought the game after I watched some youtube videos.
I think without a high marketing games like CoD would not even sell half of the numbers it does usualy. But thast my oppinion. Its just interesting to see that maybe 10% of the costs are actualy spend on the programming and making of the game while the rest goes purely just in to the advertising. I wish it would be a bit more even. You know 40 - 60 maybe. Or something like that.
Yeah I might have sound a bit strange when saying the part about people buying everything. But you know the exception proves the rule. And there are a lot of crapy games which sold very well cause of marketing alone ~ almost. Even I got tricked by Bethesda believing their game Oblivion was the best the RPG world could offer. Luckily I never bought the game after I watched some youtube videos.
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
terebikun said:
Mortal Kombat and Toshinden are proof that hype and marketing CAN sell even the worst crap.
HyperionOmega
First time out of the vault
Probably one of the most poignant remarks on this board.Nalano said:
I agree that a lot of this anger seems to be based on a pure "Black Isle is better than Bethesda" mentality. Complaints about how maybe the Enclave will finally die and how the story was crap seem to have a nostalgia line in them all. FO3 was my first introduction to Fallout ...I was blown away.. the sheer amount of info and seeming back story put around that was not quest related but was just there for fun was addicting. In fact one of the most chilling moments in any game I've played was standing in the House chambers in the Capitol building as 50's music plays and Talon and Super mutants fought in the next hallway.
Now in New Vegas there is none of that (or at least very little) haunting back story that tells of essentially what is our way of life's death. I feel a a snag of disappointment as I wonder where is the Enclave where is the tidbits of how the people of the Mojave faced the end where are the brave and noble BoS. The answer I found (at first) is not here this is not there story. What I was doing was judging a game based on the feeling of discovery and novelty that the first game gave me while some how expecting this game to up the ante somehow. This was bad on my part so I took another look at NV and found some of that background I had missed even the Enclave made an appearance and the BoS was there to. This seems to be the main point of totally disliking or even hating FO3 and NV is that the old Fallouts had a feeling of nostalgia that you expect the new games to repeat. Im sorry but that is unrealistic.
We don't want nostalgia, we want a well designed Fallout game that continues the story and setting of Fallout 1/2.
Really, your defining moment pretty much sums up what's wrong about Fallout 3. The definition of Fallout for you is a giant supermutant fighting unambiguously evil mooks in an old landmark with 50s music in the background?
Really, your defining moment pretty much sums up what's wrong about Fallout 3. The definition of Fallout for you is a giant supermutant fighting unambiguously evil mooks in an old landmark with 50s music in the background?
HyperionOmega
First time out of the vault
All the post I have read act to the contrary Fallout 1& 2 are hailed as the epitome of gaming while new incarnations that are able to walk past the technical hold backs of BlackIsle are for the most part demonized or just looked down on.
The sense of nostalgia that you got from playing fallout 1/2 is in retrospect what you want. But some years later your palate has expanded you have even entered the 21st century but to expect that genre defining, self fulfilling, feeling of awesomeness you first had with a black Isle fallout when you were younger is impossible so you blame the new guy. Now I am not saying Bethesda is innocent but come on they resurrected Fallout from obscurity, and then you rant about how you want to go back to a isometric turn based, Japanese rpg like monster with crappy graphics (compared to nowadays) at least they are trying to progress the series and not trying to rehash the old games.
How is the Talon super mutant battle in the Capitol building wrong. The scene was of haunting familiarity punctuated by bouts of violence all underscored by a humor conveyed by a 50's ish ode to anti-globalization. Fallout3 has its bugs and an apparently simple story line
but in my opinion handles better , plays better and conveys its message better than the original fallout games.
So tell me how i am wrong ohh great elder.
The sense of nostalgia that you got from playing fallout 1/2 is in retrospect what you want. But some years later your palate has expanded you have even entered the 21st century but to expect that genre defining, self fulfilling, feeling of awesomeness you first had with a black Isle fallout when you were younger is impossible so you blame the new guy. Now I am not saying Bethesda is innocent but come on they resurrected Fallout from obscurity, and then you rant about how you want to go back to a isometric turn based, Japanese rpg like monster with crappy graphics (compared to nowadays) at least they are trying to progress the series and not trying to rehash the old games.
How is the Talon super mutant battle in the Capitol building wrong. The scene was of haunting familiarity punctuated by bouts of violence all underscored by a humor conveyed by a 50's ish ode to anti-globalization. Fallout3 has its bugs and an apparently simple story line
but in my opinion handles better , plays better and conveys its message better than the original fallout games.So tell me how i am wrong ohh great elder.
That's because they (1&2) were the epitome of RPGs. It has nothing to do with the new technology, most of us don't even care whether it's isometric or FPS, we just want a well designed Fallout game, like Tagaziel said.HyperionOmega said:
You're grasping at air, and very thin air at that.HyperionOmega said:
So what? Better dead than that abomination they called Fallout 3. If it was presented as a non-sequel, a spin off, most of us wouldn't have cared.HyperionOmega said:
A yes, shitty game design is good because it's progressing from previous technologies. Great point.HyperionOmega said:
An lulzy fight conveys better the spirit of Fallout? This is why we have problems with Fallout 3 fans. You don't even understand Fallout, and yet you come here telling people what Fallout is all about. Fallout was never about humour-ish violence. It was a by-product of the setting.HyperionOmega said:How is the Talon super mutant battle in the Capitol building wrong. The scene was of haunting familiarity punctuated by bouts of violence all underscored by a humor conveyed by a 50's ish ode to anti-globalization. Fallout3 has its bugs and an apparently simple story line
Why? So you can tell us how we're wrong and all we want is nostalgia, even though it has nothing to do with that?HyperionOmega said:
HyperionOmega
First time out of the vault
Well seems like i stepped on some toes. A logical entreaty was my first option but got soon after labeled "all that is wrong with FO3" . The thorough dicing of my argument as above is commendable but several of your counterpoints are contradictory. First off the fact that a turn based RPG is the epitome of RPG's then the maintaining that it is better off dead than to enter into its current incarnations. Of which most of the industry and gaming culture has moved on from. However I guess you could chalk it up to personal differences and move along.
Secondly how could us newcomers whom have discovered Fallout from FO3 then pursued the genre back, how could we ever have an opinion to rival that of yours whom have been here longer and know what is right. Really? That your stance "I was here first"
Yet my main point of nostalgia was not refuted in fact your entire counter argument can be used as proof. The fact that you seem to not care for evolution of RPG or game play or seemingly even graphics is the very root of why you will never like a fallout game to come.
The fact is you want the feeling that fallout 1&2 gave you and care very little for trying to advance a story. You have Dogma that BlackIsle has handed down from god and any new info from Bethesda is from a second rate mostly drunk prophet at that and therefore damned to ire.
Secondly how could us newcomers whom have discovered Fallout from FO3 then pursued the genre back, how could we ever have an opinion to rival that of yours whom have been here longer and know what is right. Really? That your stance "I was here first"
Yet my main point of nostalgia was not refuted in fact your entire counter argument can be used as proof. The fact that you seem to not care for evolution of RPG or game play or seemingly even graphics is the very root of why you will never like a fallout game to come.
The fact is you want the feeling that fallout 1&2 gave you and care very little for trying to advance a story. You have Dogma that BlackIsle has handed down from god and any new info from Bethesda is from a second rate mostly drunk prophet at that and therefore damned to ire.
Nope you seemed to do that easily enough by yourself. Thanks for the help though
Which is bullshit, as I bet that everyone of us wants "evolution of RPG or game play or seemingly even graphics". I wouldn't like a new Fallout game in the 10+ years old engine, I would like it in a good looking 3d engine. But I don't want it to be a lulzfest like Fallout 3.