Bethesda and PnP mechanics

[Mord_Sith]

The reason why I mourn for Fallout is because of the fact that Bethsoft has futzed every IP they've gotten their hands on thusfar, also the fact that in my opinion, I don't find changes in perspective any more immersing than others.

It's the damn storyline that does it, at least in a role-playing game, and that's something Beth doesn't do, they do action adventure games in the spirit of RPGs.

So iffn' you ask me, this FPP > ISO > FPP > KITTY > CAKE > RTwP > TODD argument is getting about as redundant as a washing machine locked on the spin cycle.

We all like our perspectives just as they are, what I don't agree with is changing so much of Fallout to the point where it's unrecognizable, I like iso for Fallout because it allows one to get a better grasp of your surroundings, and so far I have not been convinced that Bethsoft can do a good enough job emulating that in FPP.

If you like to look through their eyes, I can't stop you, but stop trying to force what you think is best on us when it's your own personal taste that is being pushed forwards.

Bethsoft fails at interacting with the existing fan base, they fail at making much more than action adventures in the theme of RPGs and they fail at using more than 3 buzzwords to try and make it look like they care about the franchise's history and future.

If someone lies to you and sells you a pie, saying it's a cake, you'd demand your money back wouldn't you?

I love fallout, it's storyline is endearing, and it's something that challenges the mind in social and tactical actions, not to mention those times where you're SOL and you got three bullets, if the next two don't hit, the third's going into your temple!

I can't see Bethsoft staying true to the Fallout legacy, and in the end it will be a forgotten footnote long before Fallout 1 & 2 are finally shelved.

If you insist on foisting your opinions on others without considering their points and reasons behind them, you're at the wrong place, so if you have nothing else constructive to add, I think this thread's done.

 

[Tyshalle]

If you like to look through their eyes, I can't stop you, but stop trying to force what you think is best on us when it's your own personal taste that is being pushed forwards.

I don't remember telling you that FPP is superior and Fallout 3 should be FPP. I just remember saying that it ain't that bad, and Bethesda isn't eeeeeevil for doing it.

If you insist on foisting your opinions on others without considering their points and reasons behind them, you're at the wrong place, so if you have nothing else constructive to add, I think this thread's done.

Uh, right. I'm pretty sure I have given other people's opinions plenty of consideration. I just haven't happened to agree in the end, and so I've argued the point. That's the fucking point of an argument, isn't it?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Hey asshole, be less of a complete fucking dipshit in the future. This isn't about me feeling out-numbered, as I wouldn't come to fucking NMA and start a semi-Pro-Fallout 3 argument if I gave a shit about being outnumbered, would I? And I made it pretty fucking clear that the "joke" was the way I worded comment. I went on for a fucking paragraph explaining all the reasoning for why the comment was valid, and only semi-apologized for wording it in the snarky manner that I did.

Is that a request, or a demand? Your piss-poor demeanor so far after joining this forums seems to me a form of trolling. I applaud you so far, since I have rarely encountered such as yourself so much of a raconteur.

 

[Mord_Sith]

No, I won't, because FPP, by default, is more immersive than any other perspective. Any disagreement with this is simply wrong.

Smells like forcing an opinion on others AND stating that FPP is better than others don't it?

 

[Morbus]

I am backing up my opinion, I'm simply choosing to use examples that don't come from the developers of Fallout 1, as their intentions are largely irrelevant to Fallout 3. The things that I'm saying aren't baseless, I'm even using Fallout 1 and 2 as examples. I'm just choosing to go purely by the games themselves, rather than any documents beyond the game, such as things the developers have said in the past or whatever, as I've decided for myself that their opinions on some of these specific matters are largely irrelevant.

We are talking about what a Fallout game should be, and you base it on the games themselves? That's not logical, it's like an attorney basing it's accusation on the suspect...

That's not the same thing as picking and choosing what facts I'll listen to, and what facts I won't. It's your opinion that the original Developer's intentions matter to the core of what "Fallout" is. I don't agree. That's what this sums up to. Don't pretend this has anything to do with the scientific method or a lack of backing up arguments, because it doesn't.

It doesn't. But I can't understand why you think YOUR opinion about Fallout is more relevant that the developers' will when they created it. Fallout is something more now, ok, but we're talking about creating more of it, not interpreting it. You can look at monalisa and have an opinion. But you can't create another one just with that...

Um, it depends on what we're talking about. If we ask your dad to write about fucking Diablo 2, then he's got a great reference: Playing the fucking game.

That's not a reference. He'd probably come up with "this game is very realistic and has very good graphics"...

References only matter if they're relevant to the discussion.

And the intent of the creators is not relevant to the discussion of what is Fallout... Right... I'll let someone else argue about it, now...

Likewise, if we're talking about the core of what is Fallout, which is largely subjective, and I say that the core of Fallout doesn't lie in its game mechanics but instead is in the open-ended gameplay, the lack of good vs. evil mentality, consequences for every action but complete freedom of choice

Sorry to interrupt, but if you say that (and you do) you are a complete moron: that's not the core of Fallout, that's the core of any classical RPG. Choices and consequences are to Fallout as wheels are to cars: they are a given.

and you come back to me and say "Well, the developers built the game from the ground up with the game mechanics at the forefront of their collective minds," I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean anything to me. The developers intentions, much like any piece of art, ultimately only matters up to the point that it gets into its audiences' hands. Then they take whatever they want from it.

I understand what you mean and I agree. But we're not talking about what Fallout is, we're talking about what Fallout (3) should be. Right? Isn't that the thing here?

You wonder why Bethesda is butchering what you think is the "core" of Fallout and then damn their audacity for still calling it Fallout, and I respond that they simply don't see the same things you do as the "core" of Fallout.

Because they are stupid assclowns that claim to be Fallout fans when they make games that have nothing to do with it. If they were Fallout fans, they'd never look at the RPG genre in the way they look to begin with. Look at Oblivion, for god's sake. What Fallout fan would ever do such hideous piece of uninteractive reality?

The only reason this is a problem is because it provides a solid kick to the nuts of your argument, which seems to be strongly supported by the original developers' intentions.

It is, because it's the logic way to look at it. If I were to act like you I'd base my arguments in MY OWN view of Fallout (which would lead to the same effect, in the end) and we'd be on an impasse, because no one would be right and no one would be wrong. If you think that's ok, well, maybe they shouldn't try to make someone else's game...

You care about nothing but yourself.

You said it yourself. I care about me, of course, but I also care for the original target audience who is being screwed over...

 

[Brother None]

I am backing up my opinion, I'm simply choosing to use examples that don't come from the developers of Fallout 1, as their intentions are largely irrelevant to Fallout 3.

Then any arguments you make come down to "it's just my opinion, man", which would make this whole thing a fruitless exercise, because just acknowledging that we both have opinions serves no purpose. The fact that you won't even acknowledge that even if designer's intention isn't some kind of ultimate answer, it's still a hell of a lot more important than your opinion is just petulant, though.

Because you're just going to interpret anything from Fallout 1 and 2 to fit your opinion, just as you have been pushing "PnP is not the core" on us, despite the fact that the game started from a pen and paper base.

Face it, the reason you're not going with design intentions are because they don't fit your argument. That's fine, it's typical for internet argument, but it's pretty weak. Reality doesn't fit your argument so you ignore reality. Do you expect to convince anyone of anything with that?

I'm really wondering where you think you're going to get if you can't even accept a common basis of argument, though. You're measuring with a different stick than we are. So what are you planning to do? Just continue repeating "but my opinion is" even when it has been clearly explained to you that we don't engage in the fruitless effort of comparing opinions, here? 's rather pointless, no?

It's your opinion that the original Developer's intentions matter to the core of what "Fallout" is. I don't agree.

Wait, what?

Jesus Frith Christ, you got it all backwards, man.

The developer's intentions and opinion doesn't matter to what the core of Fallout is. The core of Fallout will always be the same. The question is not what determines the core, the question how do we find out what the core is.

Now we can all play it and say "this is more important". So? You'll say setting is the core, I'll say choice and consequence is the core, Morbus will say mechanics is the core and Sorrow will say it should've been GURPS.

And then what?

How do we proceed from there?

Because all we've done so far is take a subjective experience and present it as the truth.

Let me draw up an analogy. We're walking over a pavement. I say the stones look like they've been cobbled cross-wise. You say the stones look like they've been cobbled straight...and then what? There is no way out of there, because you can't actually subjectively look at this hypothetical street (you could a real one, but not this one) and determine what the cobbler did.

Then the cobbler walks by. He says he cobbled straight.

"Aha!" you shout, "but I don't care what you intended! I can obviously see the street is cobbled cross-wise!"

Can you honestly, honestly, expect either me or the cobbler to do anything other than to just stare at you in silence for a second before shaking our heads sadly and walking away for a pint?

Your argument essentially boils down to that we should use purely subjective determinants - namely what is your opinion and what is mine - to supersede objective determinants - namely what was the person trying to do when he made the game. Of course the developers didn't succeed in everything they tried and in so far the objective determinant falls short, but it's the only objective determinant we have and thus it is the only common base of argument we can use - assuming the very basis is "Fallout 3 should follow Fallout's core design philosophy". If we have no common base of argument, all this will be is a long string of "yes it is" and "no it isn't", because we would ridiculously be trying to discuss something we subjectively see as different.

Frith, Inlè and all the stars, I can't believe you're peddling that nonsense.

 

[Tyshalle]

Smells like forcing an opinion on others AND stating that FPP is better than others don't it?

Sounds like logic to me. But in all seriousness, I've elaborated on that point about a thousand times now. Exactly in which way do I have to word it before you begin to understand?

FPP = More Immersive than ISO

This is taking into account no other game mechanic beyond perspective. When you add up every little detail and factoid of a game, and compare it likewise to another game, the FPP game might not be more immersive overall than the third-person perspective game. But by default, when we're talking about pretending to be someone else, you will feel much more like that person when you are looking through his eyes than you will staring at the top of his head from 50 meters above him in a birds-eye view.

Again, that's not taking any other factor into account. The other factors may very well trump FPP in immersiveness. I never said FPP is the only factor, or even the biggest factor.

FPP does not equal better gameplay. Like I said, if I'm playing Command and Conquer, I wouldn't want FPP. If I'm playing a game specifically designed to give you a tabletop role playing experience, like Fallout 1, I wouldn't want FPP if what I'm going for is the feel of a tabletop game.

Likewise, I wouldn't want to play Half-Life 2 in third person. It depends on the game.

How is this forcing an opinion? Ever hear of the phrase: "Walk a mile in another man's shoes?" They weren't talking about examining his shoes, or even following that guy in a helicopter while he walks a mile. Because the best way to find out what he's really going through is by putting yourself exactly in his position.

If this seems a little weak, it's only because you seem inable or unwilling to understand me from the billion other explanations I've given, so this is what I'm left with.

We are talking about what a Fallout game should be, and you base it on the games themselves? That's not logical, it's like an attorney basing it's accusation on the suspect...

...

I don't even know how to respond. I'm flabbergasted. Rendered speechless. Wow... just... wow...

It doesn't. But I can't understand why you think YOUR opinion about Fallout is more relevant that the developers' will when they created it. Fallout is something more now, ok, but we're talking about creating more of it, not interpreting it. You can look at monalisa and have an opinion. But you can't create another one just with that...

I'm not saying that my opinion is more relevant than the developers' opinions. I'm saying that my opinion is more relevant than the developers' original intentions. And I'm not even saying "my" opinion. Your opinion is just as valid, as is anyone else's, for that matter.

And if we're going to put opinions of more importance, then I dare to say we ought to default to Bethesda, since they own Fallout now.

But I ain't saying we should default, mind you. I'm just saying, that's where your logic is leading us.

Sorry to interrupt, but if you say that (and you do) you are a complete moron: that's not the core of Fallout, that's the core of any classical RPG. Choices and consequences are to Fallout as wheels are to cars: they are a given.

Uh-huh. Point me in the direction of all these video games that contain this philosophy. Because I feel like I've played maybe two that weren't Fallout. They ain't exactly in abundance.

Besides, what are you saying? That open-ended gameplay, lack of good vs. evil, complete freedom of choice and consequences for those choices are "a given," but Third-Person Perspective, turn-based combat is what? Fucking original to the Fallout universe? Are you kidding me?

Because they are stupid assclowns that claim to be Fallout fans when they make games that have nothing to do with it. If they were Fallout fans, they'd never look at the RPG genre in the way they look to begin with. Look at Oblivion, for god's sake. What Fallout fan would ever do such hideous piece of uninteractive reality?

Yeah, and the first Matrix was spectacular but the second and third completely sucked balls on every conceivable level. Past failures or successes don't automatically doom you to future ones. That doesn't mean you can't look at Oblivion and then look at Fallout 3 and worry, but the developers have admitted to a lot of the failings of Oblivion and have said those types of things won't work for Fallout, and they're going to change those things.

It's okay to not believe them, but it's stupid to declare it as fact that they're lying.

If I were to act like you I'd base my arguments in MY OWN view of Fallout (which would lead to the same effect, in the end) and we'd be on an impasse, because no one would be right and no one would be wrong.

Basing your arguments on the developer's intentions still doesn't change the fact that the developer's intentions aren't relevent. Trying to push it like their intentions rise above subjectivity and are pure doctrine is asinine.

And yeah, it's becoming a bit obvious we're coming to an impasse here, but we're a couple of nerds arguing about a videogame. An impasse is inevitable.

You said it yourself. I care about me, of course, but I also care for the original target audience who is being screwed over...

Well, I care about the other audience. The one that loved the originals but are still open to and are looking forward to this one. Why is that a problem?

Face it, the reason you're not going with design intentions are because they don't fit your argument. That's fine, it's typical for internet argument, but it's pretty weak. Reality doesn't fit your argument so you ignore reality. Do you expect to convince anyone of anything with that?

If I were "going with" designer intentions, then I wouldn't believe in my argument. I'm not arguing simply to be contrary. I do believe what I'm saying. No, designer intention doesn't fit my argument, because my argument is that what most people think of when they think of Fallout is all the stuff I've listed in past posts, not that it feels so much like playing a tabletop RPG. I'm not saying that nobody thinks of that, but I do think that the less hard-core audience, and probably a lot of the more hard-core audience (though perhaps not most) would be in agreement on that point.

Look at it this way: If I described a turn-based, isometric viewpoint game that replicated the experience of oldschool tabletop role playing, what do you think the average person would think of? Average being, not someone from NMA who frequently posts about and thinks of Fallout. If on the other hand, you describe a post-apocalyptic setting that uses a retro-50's view of the future in a game that lets you do anything, be anything, without some good vs. evil nonsense hanging above your head, I imagine most people would think of Fallout. Do you disagree?

I'm just saying, all this stuff is far, far more important to what makes Fallout what it is than the pacing of combat or the perspective.

I'm really wondering where you think you're going to get if you can't even accept a common basis of argument, though. You're measuring with a different stick than we are. So what are you planning to do? Just continue repeating "but my opinion is" even when it has been clearly explained to you that we don't engage in the fruitless effort of comparing opinions, here? 's rather pointless, no?

Agreed.

 

[Morbus]

...

I don't even know how to respond. I'm flabbergasted. Rendered speechless. Wow... just... wow...

Thank you

I'm not saying that my opinion is more relevant than the developers' opinions.

I never said that. I was talking about their will to create a game.

I'm saying that my opinion is more relevant than the developers' original intentions. And I'm not even saying "my" opinion. Your opinion is just as valid, as is anyone else's, for that matter.

This is not a matter of opinion. Fallout is a concrete thing, the way you see it is up to you, but Fallout doesn't change.

And if we're going to put opinions of more importance, then I dare to say we ought to default to Bethesda, since they own Fallout now.

But I ain't saying we should default, mind you. I'm just saying, that's where your logic is leading us.

If it was, I would always default to the original devs, not to the suckers that happened to buy it with money... And, as I said, this is not a matter of opinion.

Uh-huh. Point me in the direction of all these video games that contain this philosophy. Because I feel like I've played maybe two that weren't Fallout. They ain't exactly in abundance.

No their not. Of course their not

Besides, what are you saying? That open-ended gameplay, lack of good vs. evil, complete freedom of choice and consequences for those choices are "a given,"

For Fallout's genre, yeah, except for the lack of good vs. evil. Otherwise, it's genre defining, not franchise specific...

but Third-Person Perspective, turn-based combat is what? Fucking original to the Fallout universe? Are you kidding me?

No, it's not about third person and turn based per se, it's about the basis: GURPS, or SPECIAL, because they didn't get to have GURPS in it. Fallout is a GURPS game, that's the basis, then comes the rest. How about, I don't know, using an example. Imagine a game called Dungeons and Dragons Online that had nothing to do with D&D ruleset. Would it be ok?

Yeah, and the first Matrix was spectacular but the second and third completely sucked balls on every conceivable level.

I didn't see the second and third.

Past failures or successes don't automatically doom you to future ones.

Oblivion was a failure only in design. They designed it as a failure to what Fallout is. It was never meant to be a Fallout inspired game, because they are not fans of the core philosophy. They are people who believe role-playing is about putting the player inside a world... That ain't a Fallout fan...

That doesn't mean you can't look at Oblivion and then look at Fallout 3 and worry, but the developers have admitted to a lot of the failings of Oblivion and have said those types of things won't work for Fallout, and they're going to change those things.

As if their word meant anything...

It's okay to not believe them, but it's stupid to declare it as fact that they're lying.

I never said they're lying. I just simply don't count them as truths in principle, and, in the end, some things prove to be false, others prove to be truth... Some things are just plain false though.

Basing your arguments on the developer's intentions still doesn't change the fact that the developer's intentions aren't relevent. Trying to push it like their intentions rise above subjectivity and are pure doctrine is asinine.

Their intentions aren't subjective: they are the standard dude. Everything else comes after that. It doesn't matter how you see Fallout. Fallout stands for what it is, and if you don't know what it is because your vision changes how you see it, then go ask the developers because they know: they created it.

And yeah, it's becoming a bit obvious we're coming to an impasse here, but we're a couple of nerds arguing about a videogame. An impasse is inevitable.

Ahah, I guess... But I see your point, and just as I see your point, I see your flaw...

Well, I care about the other audience. The one that loved the originals but are still open to and are looking forward to this one. Why is that a problem?

Ok, I'll shout it: THAT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT STUPID AUDIENCE HAS A LOT OF GAMES THAT THEY LIKE AND THE ORIGINAL AUDIENCE HASN'T THAT MUCH GAMES TO PLAY ANYMORE! SO, PLEASE, DON'T MESS WITH MY GAMES!!!

kthxbye

P.S.: I didn't shout because I'm angry as much as I shouted because I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again (not here, all over the place).

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I take back the things I've said Tyshalle. I was angry when you tried to flatline my post. But you did seem to enjoy it to much. We get alot of people in here that can't find their ass with both hands when it concerns the Fallout genre, and some that even can't do that in general. It remains, however, that we are in disagreement with the core principles of the Fallout franchise, and seeing you as just registering, I wanted to make you go and hide like the rest of the trollers that stop by and try to take a shit on us.

So, I apologize.



And darky,



UR A DUMASS

 

[Tyshalle]

This is not a matter of opinion. Fallout is a concrete thing, the way you see it is up to you, but Fallout doesn't change.

Until now.

 

[Brother None]

No, designer intention doesn't fit my argument, because my argument is that what most people think of when they think of Fallout is all the stuff I've listed in past posts, not that it feels so much like playing a tabletop RPG.

Now this is pretty fucking audacious. I don't know of a single Fallout community that doesn't know and appreciate the p&p roots of the Fallout RPG, and now you come here and try to sell us that the Bethesda fan opinion is actually "most people's" opinion?

That's pretty bold. In fact, it's so bold it's a "put up or shut up" proposition. So go ahead, put up. Because it looks to me like you're arrogantly assuming everyone agrees with you for no apparent reason.

but I do think that the less hard-core audience, and probably a lot of the more hard-core audience (though perhaps not most) would be in agreement on that point.

Based on what? Visionary dreams?

If I described a turn-based, isometric viewpoint game that replicated the experience of oldschool tabletop role playing, what do you think the average person would think of?

Considering most people relate tabletop roleplaying to the fantasy setting by definition, that's a stupid question. Especially since it turns the issue upside down unnecessarily.

If on the other hand, you describe a post-apocalyptic setting that uses a retro-50's view of the future in a game that lets you do anything, be anything, without some good vs. evil nonsense hanging above your head, I imagine most people would think of Fallout. Do you disagree?

What?

"If I describe a mechanic that applies to many RPGs including Fallout, people won't automatically say that's Fallout. But if I describe a setting that only Fallout has, people will say it's Fallout."

I'm sorry, but could the door you're kicking in be any more open?

I'm just saying, all this stuff is far, far more important to what makes Fallout what it is than the pacing of combat or the perspective.

You're really going to start trying my patience here. Thank Frith I have a lot of it.

I just went through the effort, out of the kindness of my heart, to point out to you that you have no right to state your opinion as if it's fact in a community that has a good tradition of staving their facts on objectively ascertainable facts or sources.

You outright ignore that statement and then go on to just dumbly repeat your opinion as fact. That's pretty fucking rude right there.

Seriously, think for a second what you're doing. You're coming to a Fallout community...well...the Fallout community, which contains members who've had long talks with the original devs, analysed the games and all available facts and came to well-reasoned conclusions.

Then you prance in, and proclaim that your opinion is fact.

When you're countermanded "it doesn't work that way here, sorry, we don't just proclaim our opinion fact, we prefer not to use subjective reasoning like that."

And there you go again. "Yeah whatever my opinion is fact anyway."

You're either being obtuse or you're a very subtle troll. I'm having a real hard time deciding which. And realise that unlike most of these jokers, I have a strong appreciation for people willing to share aberrant opinions on NMA. But "sharing an opinion" isn't what you're doing, you're imperiously stating your opinion is fact and then sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalala I can't hear you!"

Pretty danged rude.

Until now.

*checks watch, checks Fallout* Nope, still no change.

If you honestly believe we're going to accept the core of Fallout has changed just because Bethesda paid 6 million bucks to slap the name on their box, then you really don't understand where we're coming from.

 

[Mord_Sith]

*activate Prick mode*

Smells like forcing an opinion on others AND stating that FPP is better than others don't it?

Sounds like logic to me. But in all seriousness, I've elaborated on that point about a thousand times now. Exactly in which way do I have to word it before you begin to understand?

FPP = More Immersive than ISO

This is taking into account no other game mechanic beyond perspective. When you add up every little detail and factoid of a game, and compare it likewise to another game, the FPP game might not be more immersive overall than the third-person perspective game. But by default, when we're talking about pretending to be someone else, you will feel much more like that person when you are looking through his eyes than you will staring at the top of his head from 50 meters above him in a birds-eye view.

Again, that's not taking any other factor into account. The other factors may very well trump FPP in immersiveness. I never said FPP is the only factor, or even the biggest factor.

FPP does not equal better gameplay. Like I said, if I'm playing Command and Conquer, I wouldn't want FPP. If I'm playing a game specifically designed to give you a tabletop role playing experience, like Fallout 1, I wouldn't want FPP if what I'm going for is the feel of a tabletop game.

Likewise, I wouldn't want to play Half-Life 2 in third person. It depends on the game.

How is this forcing an opinion? Ever hear of the phrase: "Walk a mile in another man's shoes?" They weren't talking about examining his shoes, or even following that guy in a helicopter while he walks a mile. Because the best way to find out what he's really going through is by putting yourself exactly in his position.

If this seems a little weak, it's only because you seem inable or unwilling to understand me from the billion other explanations I've given, so this is what I'm left with.

No, I won't, because FPP, by default, is more immersive than any other perspective. Any disagreement with this is simply wrong.

Do I need to paint it on a wall to make you understand your own words?

Understanding isn't the issue for me, as I know exactly what you're saying, however I also understand you got your head so far shoved up your ass you can see Greenland!

If you honestly think that FPP is the be all and end all of gaming, then why in the blue bloody hell is Final Fantasy popular still, or ANY strategy game, what about adventure games, there's still lots of fans of those, perhaps the MMOs would like to take a swing as they're generally not FPP, and those that are usually wind up failing miserably or stop getting supported.

Just because YOU like FPP doesn't mean that others do, in fact I find it the most useless of perspectives second only to cinematic camera perspective. It has only two purposes, shooters and shooter wannabees, where accuracy matters, otherwise it's got no real use.

Now would you please for the love of all that is cheesy stop preaching about FPP, you lost the audience when you tried to force-feed your point a long LONG time ago, and it's obvious that we can't save you from the disappointment you're gonna get when you first unwrap that cellophane wrapped box of crap.

FPP is not the mystical swiss army knife of gaming, it can't fit every genre, trust me it's tried and failed on many occasions, however there's always some git who thinks he's the world's hot shit and proclaims that they're right no matter what anyone thinks.

I understand fully what you're saying, you're caught up in your own words so bloody bad you're trying to throw up a smokescreen so that we might miss our mark, well guess what jack, you ain't got a leg to stand on.

You are just shy of working my last nerve here, I've tried being at least moderate, now I'm tired of playing, you got about as much of an argument for FPP than I do for breadsticks over rebar for road construction and as much arrogance as an Iranian oil baron!

I suggest you take your FPP and stick it where the sun don't shine so it can join you in Greenland, 'cause you're gonna be all alone there for a long time, you and the FINO pile of crap to keep your pathetic existence warm at night.

*disengaging Prick mode*

 

[Brother None]

By the way, this thread is ready for dying down now, so feel free to leave it alone.

If debate continues without any substance but with misunderstands, personal attacks and semantics/pointless "it's just my opinion" stuff, it's vats.

If someone can inject substance into this...by all means.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=w8ye4mYR878[/youtube]

 

[Ravager69]

What the .....


CHUCK NORRIS CANNOT DIE!!!

 

[Azrael-Arkangel]

What the .....


CHUCK NORRIS CANNOT DIE!!!

You are correct.

 

[Tyshalle]

Now this is pretty fucking audacious. I don't know of a single Fallout community that doesn't know and appreciate the p&p roots of the Fallout RPG

"If I describe a mechanic that applies to many RPGs including Fallout, people won't automatically say that's Fallout. But if I describe a setting that only Fallout has, people will say it's Fallout."

These are linked a lot more than you seem to realize. That's my argument. Bethesda is taking the stuff of the originals that are purely defining elements of Fallout, and, for better or worse, they're abandoning the rest.

Whether you attribute, and whether the Dev's attribute the other stuff as defining characteristics of Fallout is ultimately irrelevant, because in the end, even you admit that there is a difference between stuff that's specific to Fallout and stuff that Fallout uses, but plenty of other people use as well.

And we can dance around this a billion ways, but I think we're both getting pretty annoyed at having to, so let's just leave conjecture out of it and stick with things we both can agree are facts and/or high probabilities: Bethesda doesn't seem to believe TB/ISO is a requirement to a good, and marketable Fallout game. There are plenty of people looking forward to Fallout 3, which means that, even if they don't agree, they can at least stand to not have it. In the end, Fallout 3 is probably going to be enormously successful, monetarily speaking, both with new players and old Fallout fans.

What is opinion here, is what the intelligence of the people who will enjoy Fallout 3 is. It's being passed around as fact around here that this game is being designed for stupid people, by stupid people, and like I said, we've danced around these subjects enough that it just doesn't need to happen anymore.

Also, the original Developer's intentions having relevance or adding weight to arguments in this discussion is also a matter of perspective. You say that I ignore it because it doesn't fit my argument, and I say that the only reason you're using it is because it's the only thing that holds your arguments together. And in both attacks, we both disagree and think there's more to it than that. But fuck it, no point in going there anymore, lest the world "troll" be thrown about like fresh butt-hole in a state penitentiary's shower-room anymore.

If you honestly believe we're going to accept the core of Fallout has changed just because Bethesda paid 6 million bucks to slap the name on their box, then you really don't understand where we're coming from.

Oy, the smiley's must be broken or ineffective. That or maybe I just need to start pointing out the thoughts and feelings and intentions of every sentence I write in order to avoid bullshit like this.

Do I need to paint it on a wall to make you understand your own words?

No, but it's starting to sound like you might benefit from some larger print. Did all the times I said "'more immersive' does not mean the same thing as 'better'" or "tons of other game elements can outweigh the immersiveness of FPP" shrink to oblivion and get completely overlooked by you?

If you honestly think that FPP is the be all and end all of gaming

And no. I don't. But I also never said that. If you're going to

*activate Prick mode*

then at least make sure you took the time to actually read the post you're arguing against. Even the part you quoted for your response says outright that other factors can outweigh the immersiveness of FPP, and FPP does not equal better gameplay. Did you not even read the post you quoted? I even fucking used a real-time strategy game as an example, saying that I WOULD NOT WANT TO PLAY IT IN FPP.

Jesus Christ man. I can appreciate that you strongly disagree with me, but the writing is on the fucking wall here, and you're either intentionally misinterpreting me and ignoring things I'm saying to favor your argument, or you're just a complete moron.

FPP is not the mystical swiss army knife of gaming, it can't fit every genre,

Like I said, if I'm playing Command and Conquer, I wouldn't want FPP.

Yeah, maybe it's both.

If someone can inject substance into this...by all means.

Well, I think that at this point it's all just petty bickering (hard to say if it was ever anything more), but it's obvious this discussion is more annoying than intriguing or entertaining for pretty much everyone involved, so at this point I'm just going to leave the thread alone.

If anyone, as you said, injects substance into this, then maybe I'll take another look, but otherwise I'm pretty sure there's nothing else worth saying that hasn't already been misinterpreted.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Methinks you should probably let it go for now Tyshalle, I've been up to this off and on with slowly dwindling resolve for a long time. I post here because generally speaking I love Fallout, like the news, and like all the other members, but they're pretty stuck in their ways about some things and this is one of them. They do have a lot of basis for their arguments, regardless if they overweigh the value of conserving what many of us deem to be worthless game features for worthless design philosophies.

FFS, someone even said that you couldn't just look at the Mona Lisa and recreate it, you would need to understand Leonardo Da Vincis motives. (which is incredibly untrue and said person needs to lrn2paint)

Don't let the heavy opinions and well tread arguments warn you away though, it's a pretty good forum

 

[Sorrow]

FFS, someone even said that you couldn't just look at the Mona Lisa and recreate it, you would need to understand Leonardo Da Vincis motives. (which is incredibly untrue and said person needs to lrn2paint)

But what if someone tried to recreate Mona Lisa as a sound?

 

[xdarkyrex]

FFS, someone even said that you couldn't just look at the Mona Lisa and recreate it, you would need to understand Leonardo Da Vincis motives. (which is incredibly untrue and said person needs to lrn2paint)

But what if someone tried to recreate Mona Lisa as a sound?

That would be changing mediums and open to interpretation. Do you think artists have some sort of magical thinking and everything is inspired by a motive? There are many artists who have no underlying theme or concept to their art, they just think of something "cool", and then replicate it out of their mind for the world to see, or they simply paint a portrait of someone, or draw something they see.