Bethesda producer on Fallout

[Brother None]

**I wish Roshambo was stil here.

...I thought you were Rosh.

 

[Briosafreak]

Yeah, there are only three guys that write in that style, and Rosh is one of them


Have you noticed how a few newsposts in several fora begin with people complaining a bit, followed by a guy or two provoking a strong reaction that leads to everyone crushing Bethesda to smithereens? Is this on purpose to help out on a victimization strategy or what's the point? And where are those guys coming anyway?

 

[Literacy_Hooligan]

Took me a while to read all the posts... puff...

Still i think you are arguing for nothing here.
There are some simple reasons why:

1. You do not know what are you going to do in the next 5 minutes or the next morning.
2. You do not know what is going to happen in the next 5 minutes or in the next morning or in any other time in the future.
3. You do not know what others are thinking right now, and that includes Bethesda developers.
4. If you cannot predict what are you gonna do in the near future, what makes you think, you know what others will do?

So that means YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT BETHESDA IS GOING TO DEVELOP. Can't you understand that? Wait until they gonna show us something, then sign up for beta testers teams, that will give us a chance to change at least something. Furthermore, only when we SEE something, we can make conclusions and burn Beth in our minds for good.

All in all. You are complaining for the future, which hasn't happened yet.
In the same way i could say:

"Crap... The US soon will be nothing more than an totalitarian society where everyone is fat and have guns and shoot each other for stealing bread crums or telling that Israel should be blown off the map. That's not good. Really not good...."

So look, i said what i believe will happen, but it still hasn't happened, even though there are already many signs of this happening. It might never happen.
God people, stop calling each other "morons" and start thinking of what are you saying.

 

[Wooz]

1. You know that crap smells bad
2. You do not eat crap*, because you know it smells bad, and would probably taste as disgusting as it smells
3. If someone just sold you a Delicious Hot Dog, which looks, smells, and after that horrible first bite, tastes like crap, you know for certain it's crap.
4. If you can't recognize crap when you see it, and don't know what you're going to do in the next five minutes, chances are you'll drown in a septic tank pretty soon.

SO ABOUT THE ONLY THING THIS MEANS IS THAT YOUR CAPSLOCK KEY IS ON.

God people, stop calling each other "morons" and start thinking of what are you saying.

Morons...

Comedy gold.

*Ok, -most- people don't eat crap.

 

[Yoshi525]

1. You do not know what are you going to do in the next 5 minutes or the next morning.

'illuminati'

2. You do not know what is going to happen in the next 5 minutes or in the next morning or in any other time in the future.

Time sucks, cheese rocks.

3. You do not know what others are thinking right now, and that includes Bethesda developers.

Source? No? Stfu then.

4. If you cannot predict what are you gonna do in the near future, what makes you think, you know what others will do?

Dependant on assumptions 1, 2, 3.

All in all. You are complaining for the future, which hasn't happened yet.

As the French say 'act tomorrow today you may be dead'.

God people, stop calling each other "morons" and start thinking of what are you saying.

To paraphrase you loose now get out of my forum.

Danke.

 

[RPG of the year!!]

**I wish Roshambo was stil here.

...I thought you were Rosh.

...

Well, shit.

Have you noticed how a few newsposts in several fora begin with people complaining a bit, followed by a guy or two provoking a strong reaction that leads to everyone crushing Bethesda to smithereens? Is this on purpose to help out on a victimization strategy or what's the point? And where are those guys coming anyway?

Identical to the phenomena from the FO:BoS days. Eerie. Maybe Herve Caen like... Uh... Gave Pete(y'know) Hines the number of his favourite viral marketting firm. That or cockwarmers share a hive mind.

So that means YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT BETHESDA IS GOING TO DEVELOP. Can't you understand that? Wait until they gonna show us something, then sign up for beta testers teams, that will give us a chance to change at least something. Furthermore, only when we SEE something, we can make conclusions and burn Beth in our minds for good.

Thanks for the insight, Shadow Paladin v3.0, but that train of thought has a poor record of staying on the tracks. Watch closely; I will attempt to make you sniff the cluestick:

obviously turn-based combat has worked well on consoles, since KOTOR blew people away last year and FF has a very large and loyal following

...

You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith [Fallout 3] would be similar in style [to Morrowind]. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well.

...

we do RPGs. That's our genre, that's what we play, that's what we know. So there's no question that what we're interested in making is a role-playing game. In addition, our Elder Scrolls games are open-ended, offer the player lots of options to play the game as they choose... Things like that. I think those qualities are consistent with those in Fallout

...

we're planning on making a Fallout game as if we've made the first two and now we're making the third. Just like we've made all the previous Elder Scrolls games and now we're making Oblivion

I think people can look at how we've treated the Elder Scrolls and know that we'll give the same care to Fallout.

I will assume, likely in error, that you have enough braincells to compute the sum total and buy a clue. I don't feel like dredging up Vault Dweller and Roshambo's infoleaks about O:BoS when they do little more than rehash Toddy's words in slightly more(obvious) detail.

But I always do enjoy the "wait and see!" stance, even on this occasion, the billionth time it's been uttered in defence of Fallout's name being attached to horseshit.

It's like being ambushed by a retard, clapping his flippers and shrieking "TRY IT AND SEE! YOU DON'T KNOOOOW!!" after I explain that while I haven't actually experienced it, jamming a steakknife up one's crotch would indeed feel painful("LOL SEE! U CANT JUDJJ!!").

Never gets tired.

 

[Brother None]

...

Well, shit.

Banned for double registering.

Identical to the phenomena from the FO:BoS days. Eerie. Maybe Herve Caen like... Uh... Gave Pete(y'know) Hines the number of his favourite viral marketting firm. That or cockwarmers share a hive mind.

Part, if not most, of me wishes it were closer to the Fo:BoS days.

"Kharn, whatever do you mean?"

Well, moronic claims from Chuck asides, that he was a fan of Fallout and making a fun game, Fallout:BoS was de facto never presented to be anything else than what it was: BGA in a Fallout costume, but with less production value than Dark Alliance.

Imagine if Chuck had had Pete working for him. Yegh.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Fuck all you \Wait and see\ idiots. You can't even father a lampost.So intead of using some great arguments like Jabberwocky or RPG of the Year I'll just leave you with something your barren minds can relate to:


It ain't Fallout if you play it with a gamepad.

It ain't Fallout if you can't kick a rat in the groin.

It ain't Fallout if you fuckheads can understand it.






BTW : It will most doubtly have as much storyline as an Akon video.

 

[Brother None]

Fuck all you \Wait and see\ idiots.

Note that wait and see was and maybe still is the prevalent attitude. It has been made way too obvious that wait and see equates giving Bethesda a free shot at marginalizing us, though.

Guess who we have to thank for that insight? Rosh and VDweller. Hate to admit it, but we do.

I love to hate you guys!

 

[zioburosky13]

If this is what those fanboys want...
"rmerritt Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 am

I so hope Fallout 3 is NOT turnbased. We aren’t running 60 mhz computers and RPGs don’t need to be turn based anymore. I like turn based in some games (such as X-com), but I hate in in RPGs. Like Garry Whitta said, it just takes me out of the game. They were ok back in the day but now, I find the whole “lets pull you out of the game for the board game like combat mini game” mechanic really jarring. Maybe some sort of system like how the older might & magics did it would be fine or whatever the hell is in KOTOR. I love Fallout. Had a great setting, characters, writing, but the combat was for me, horribly unfun. Combat took way too long to resolve in Fallout. Sure there was the odd “hit across the room in the eyes” *wow* moment. However most of the time, you end up standing 2 feet from someone, spend five minutes missing them only to have one of you NPC party to have a critical thumble and blow your arm off. Then you got a few levels and become an invincible god of small arms and the locational selection exists only to keep the player from falling completely asleep. I’ll buy it and play it no matter what type of combat Bethesda ends up using but I really really hope its more like “Oblivion with Guns” than not.

For me, Fallout 3 needs

1. Retro future gone wrong setting. The best fallout games are never far from their retro futuristic roots. In the 1930s to 50s we had a very different view of what the future would be. Fallout used this as a starting point. To me, this is the defining feature of the Fallout universe. Straying from this and you end up with Mad Max or Postman. (or the console Fallout BOS)
2. The established universe character and items. Things such as Ghouls, radscorps, tribes, nuka cola, postcards, pip boy, and so forth.
3. Character stats affect game play. Most crpgs, character stats just affect how hard a puzzle or combat is. In Fallout 1 & 2, they really changed how the game is played.
4. Perks. These are at the heart of customizing your character in the fallout universe.
5. Morbid humor. Things are bleak but if you don’t make them at least somewhat twisted, it ruins the enjoyment of the game. Fallout is not survival horror.
6. The music. Should be 1950s and creepy sci fi. No hip hop or rock.
7. Vague history and world status. We really don’t know what happen and what the status of the rest of the world is and this game shouldn’t change that.
8. Over the top violence. (hellloooo M rating)
9. Harold. – Nuff said

Oblivions + Guns + what is listed above would be perfect to me."

 

[Ivy Mike]

There needs to be a sticky in the forums that contains all that is know /related to FO3 so that we can redirect all the morons to that post instead of going through all the same old arguments every time there's some news. This has to be the fifth time I've read the same arguments ("BUT YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING! WAIT AND SEE!!") with the same rebuttals ("LOOK AT WHAT BETHESDA SAID!"), and frankly it's getting tiresome.

 

[SuAside]

omfg, where did you find this guy? i cant even begin to comment on that quote, it'd quickly grow into an essay...

oh well...

*breaks out the Saiga 12 shotty from the gun closet and goes on a rampage instead*

 

[VDweller]

That's Rob Merritt, a known internet fag and avid Oblivion fan.
http://www.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=5749705
(comes with his picture)

 

[Gnol]

And why do you think that is? Because NMA has given everybody that wasn't on the original team a fair chance? Because people like Roshambo have been so very nice to them?

I don't know, they never gave it the chance to be nice or not, fair or not before blacklisting us.

Come on, NMA hasn't been nice to anybody since VB went under. Just look at my Avatar and user title - I got this because I dared to disagree with Roshambo (before you ask: I hold no grudge against anyone from NMA but him). This really isn't the kind of site I'd want to talk to if I were a developer.

Even when something seriously positive is said about FO3, Bethesda gets flamed by some.

Sorry? Nobody said anything about Fallout 3. Did you even read the newspost?[/quote]

Of course I did. Maybe I should have been more verbose: "Even when something that sounds seriously positive is said by somebody working on FO3..."

Let's not pick on words, you know what I meant. Let's keep the discussion constructive (that's the point I am making WRT FO3, BTW).

And not every console/PC hybrid game has to be a Deus Ex 2.

No, but it is the modus operandi of hybrids.

I know this does not bode well, but it doesn't mean automatic FOPOS either. I am not saying not to be wary, just keep it constructive. You can disagree with somebody and still be nice about it, which will greatly enhance your chance of them talking to you.

If you were a developer, would you talk about your upcoming game with a site that's going to treat you nicely (which doesn't equal sucking up to you), or with a site whose members are frothing at the mouth at anything you say, and which you can't please either way just because you are not somebody else?

If I were a developer I'd be worried about finding out whether site is actually that or whether that's just bullshit.

I am not saying NMA is like that, I am saying NMA can seem like that. See, I know NMA's abrasiveness is not because the people here hate Fallout 3, it's because they love Fallout. Like overly protective parents that fear every change in their developing child, you have to ask yourself whether you're actually helping your case. I'm saying you could do better by just being more understanding that things won't stay exactly the same as they were, and that FO3 wouldn't even be made if Bethesda didn't think they could make money off it, which - yes, sadly, but we'll just have to accept it because, as I said, otherwise FO3 wouldn't be made at all - means compromise for us hardcore fans here and there. And while things like Isometric or Turn based are important parts of the experience, the game wouldn't be automatically ruined if it, for instance, got a well-executed paused real time combat system (maybe even gaining the ability to control party members...). Of course it wouldn't be Fallout 1 or 2 anymore - but is that automatically be bad? If it were, people would be crying out that Bethesda is asking money for selling what would essentially be a mod.

Question, were you around during Van Buren? Tactics? Do you know how much of a change we gave them, even Tactics? The whole "you'll never give them a fair chance"-line is bullshit and anti-Fallout fan propaganda. We give people a chance who show that they deserve it.

Yes. And of course you gave VB a chance, seeing as who it came from, and that it was the first lifesign of a franchise many feared was dead. Of course people were frustrated after VB went under, me included. But I am glad somebody - and this time somebody well-funded, which, I know, was Herve's fault, not the devs' - is trying to do another FO3. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Tactics wasn't completely canon, it wasn't a great game, it wasn't an RPG, and it certainly didn't live up to the standards FO1 and 2 set (but then, what does? FO3 might not, and might still be a great game), but it was OK. I know OK isn't exactly what we're all wishing FO3 to turn out, but seriously, when I read NMA I get the impression you guys expect it to turn out way worse than OK.

Don't think I am just being naive, either. I have observed one of the greatest franchises get ruined by an awful third game. Have you ever played Master of Orion III? That one was ruined because the developers had contact only to the hardcore fanbase.

 

[Sander]

Come on, NMA hasn't been nice to anybody since VB went under. Just look at my Avatar and user title - I got this because I dared to disagree with Roshambo (before you ask: I hold no grudge against anyone from NMA but him). This really isn't the kind of site I'd want to talk to if I were a developer.

The whole avatar has pretty much happened for years, including before Van Buren went under. It has nothing to do with how we treat ideas and developers.

By the way, there was nobody to be nice to after Van Buren but Bethesda, so your 'example' is pretty damned skewed.

Of course I did. Maybe I should have been more verbose: "Even when something that sounds seriously positive is said by somebody working on FO3..."

Let's not pick on words, you know what I meant. Let's keep the discussion constructive (that's the point I am making WRT FO3, BTW).

Co-producer is certainly not the same as working on FO3, and it really isn't positive in light of *everything else* that's been said.

I know this does not bode well, but it doesn't mean automatic FOPOS either. I am not saying not to be wary, just keep it constructive. You can disagree with somebody and still be nice about it, which will greatly enhance your chance of them talking to you.

Yeah, because we aren't on a blacklist or anything.

I am not saying NMA is like that, I am saying NMA can seem like that. See, I know NMA's abrasiveness is not because the people here hate Fallout 3, it's because they love Fallout. Like overly protective parents that fear every change in their developing child, you have to ask yourself whether you're actually helping your case. I'm saying you could do better by just being more understanding that things won't stay exactly the same as they were, and that FO3 wouldn't even be made if Bethesda didn't think they could make money off it, which - yes, sadly, but we'll just have to accept it because, as I said, otherwise FO3 wouldn't be made at all - means compromise for us hardcore fans here and there. And while things like Isometric or Turn based are important parts of the experience, the game wouldn't be automatically ruined if it, for instance,

got a well-executed paused real time combat system

Contradictio in terminis.

(maybe even gaining the ability to control party members...).

Egad, that'd really suck.

Of course it wouldn't be Fallout 1 or 2 anymore - but is that automatically be bad? If it were, people would be crying out that Bethesda is asking money for selling what would essentially be a mod.

Ehm, huh?
You're on a Fallout fansite and you're asking Fallout fans whether Fallout 3 not being like their favourite game is a bad thing.
Do you even have a brain left or is that just some squishy goo waiting to leak out of your nose?
Yeesh.

Yes. And of course you gave VB a chance, seeing as who it came from,

Ehm, you mean people who absolutely nothing to do with the first games whatsoever?
Yeah, I can see how that was positive.
Psch, the reason Van Buren got a chance was that the Van Buren developers were open and friendly in their communications.
Bethesda, on the other hand, has shown no signs of life towards the fans, and any interview they've given so far was far from positive.

and that it was the first lifesign of a franchise many feared was dead. Of course people were frustrated after VB went under, me included. But I am glad somebody - and this time somebody well-funded, which, I know, was Herve's fault, not the devs' - is trying to do another FO3. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Good for you. We are too, if they hadn't pretty much squandered that already.

Tactics wasn't completely canon, it wasn't a great game, it wasn't an RPG, and it certainly didn't live up to the standards FO1 and 2 set (but then, what does? FO3 might not, and might still be a great game), but it was OK. I know OK isn't exactly what we're all wishing FO3 to turn out, but seriously, when I read NMA I get the impression you guys expect it to turn out way worse than OK.

If we get Tactics as a Fallout 3 game, the franchise is pretty much dead. And do you know why? Because Tactics was an OK game, but admitted it was a *spin-off* not part of the core series.

Furthermore, did you play Oblivion? Did you know that much of Oblivion's staff went over to Fallout 3's development group? If so, you'd know why people expect a pretty poor Fallout 3.

Don't think I am just being naive, either. I have observed one of the greatest franchises get ruined by an awful third game. Have you ever played Master of Orion III? That one was ruined because the developers had contact only to the hardcore fanbase.

I remember it being ruined because it was a relatively poor game, with lots and lots and lots of bugs.

Anyway, there are plenty of other examples. The Ultima series, the X-Com/UFO franchise, the TES series. All completely diverged from their original line, killing off the franchise in two cases (Ultima and UFO), and ruining it for anybody who liked the original franchise in the other case, *twice* (TES).

 

[Gnol]

got a well-executed paused real time combat system

Contradictio in terminis.

(maybe even gaining the ability to control party members...).

Egad, that'd really suck.

Opinions and fancy words.

Of course it wouldn't be Fallout 1 or 2 anymore - but is that automatically be bad? If it were, people would be crying out that Bethesda is asking money for selling what would essentially be a mod.

Ehm, huh?
You're on a Fallout fansite and you're asking Fallout fans whether Fallout 3 not being like their favourite game is a bad thing.
Do you even have a brain left or is that just some squishy goo waiting to leak out of your nose?
Yeesh.

This is exactly what I am talking about. For some reason, you can't seem to tolerate people with differing opinions. And behaving like a rude child isn't going to get any developers to talk to you, either.

I don't know whether you lack the capacity or just the willingness to understand what I wrote, but honestly with behaviour like yours, I don't care anymore, and I can see ever clearer why people wouldn't want to talk to you. I don't even have to make an argument, you make a pretty good one yourself.

Yes. And of course you gave VB a chance, seeing as who it came from,

Ehm, you mean people who absolutely nothing to do with the first games whatsoever?
Yeah, I can see how that was positive.

It was Black Isle Studios, IIRC.

Psch, the reason Van Buren got a chance was that the Van Buren developers were open and friendly in their communications.
Bethesda, on the other hand, has shown no signs of life towards the fans, and any interview they've given so far was far from positive.

So BIS was being verbose, which of course is nice for a fansite, but Bethesda is keeping a closed lid on things as they always do, which makes you go all all emo and say "oh, they hate ME and only ME"?

and that it was the first lifesign of a franchise many feared was dead. Of course people were frustrated after VB went under, me included. But I am glad somebody - and this time somebody well-funded, which, I know, was Herve's fault, not the devs' - is trying to do another FO3. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Good for you. We are too, if they hadn't pretty much squandered that already.

By doing what? Talking to one or two other people and not talking to you?

Tactics wasn't completely canon, it wasn't a great game, it wasn't an RPG, and it certainly didn't live up to the standards FO1 and 2 set (but then, what does? FO3 might not, and might still be a great game), but it was OK. I know OK isn't exactly what we're all wishing FO3 to turn out, but seriously, when I read NMA I get the impression you guys expect it to turn out way worse than OK.

If we get Tactics as a Fallout 3 game, the franchise is pretty much dead. And do you know why? Because Tactics was an OK game, but admitted it was a *spin-off* not part of the core series.

I agree.

Furthermore, did you play Oblivion? Did you know that much of Oblivion's staff went over to Fallout 3's development group? If so, you'd know why people expect a pretty poor Fallout 3.

I did, and I didn't like it much. But I also played BIS games in the past, and I didn't like them either. Both were well executed, they were just not my kind of game.

Don't think I am just being naive, either. I have observed one of the greatest franchises get ruined by an awful third game. Have you ever played Master of Orion III? That one was ruined because the developers had contact only to the hardcore fanbase.

I remember it being ruined because it was a relatively poor game, with lots and lots and lots of bugs.

Even without the bugs, it is a boring game. Fallout (or was it 2? It's been so long) had lots of bugs initially and was still great.

Anyway, there are plenty of other examples. The Ultima series, the UFO franchise, the TES series. All completely diverged from their original line, killing off the franchise in two cases (Ultima and UFO), and ruining it for anybody who liked the original franchise in the other case, *twice* (TES).

I know, very sad. And as I said, I am not saying to be carelessly enthusiastic, just to give them a chance. If you want them to talk to you, you have to offer them your hand. They probably won't, and this thread illustrates once again why.


sorry for the triple post, something happened with my internet connection.

 

[Sander]

Opinions and fancy words.

Opinions and 'fancy words' based on *facts*, yes.

This is exactly what I am talking about. For some reason, you can't seem to tolerate people with differing opinions. And behaving like a rude child isn't going to get any developers to talk to you, either.

I don't know whether you lack the capacity or just the willingness to understand what I wrote, but honestly with behaviour like yours, I don't care anymore, and I can see ever clearer why people wouldn't want to talk to you. I don't even have to make an argument, you make a pretty good one yourself.

Thank you, I consider my arguments to be very good as well.

In all seriousness, not every opinion is a valid opinion, you can actually evaluate opinions based on facts, something that seems to be out of your reach since all you've come up so far is 'But that's my opinion!'
Guess what, we base our 'opinions' on *facts* about the design of Fallout and the prior history of companies and franchises (see Ultima and X-Com for comparable cases).

Also, you haven't answered my question: what makes you think that we want a Fallout game to not be like Fallout? In essence, you are asking us to be okay with Bethesda betraying exactly what made us like the first games. You are asking us 'But it isn't so bad if Fallout 3 betrays the series, is it?'
Fuck that. We're a Fallout fansite, not a developer fansite.

It was Black Isle Studios, IIRC.

Yes, consisting of people who had practically nothing to do with the original Fallout games.
At that point Black Isle Studios had as much to do with Fallout as EA did.

So BIS was being verbose, which of course is nice for a fansite, but Bethesda is keeping a closed lid on things as they always do, which makes you go all all emo and say "oh, they hate ME and only ME"?

Eh, what? What a crock of shit.
It doesn't make us go 'they hate us', it makes us go 'they'll fuck it up', in light of what they've done and said so far.
No one is saying that Bethesda hates us and only us.

It's starting to smell of troll here, really.

By doing what? Talking to one or two other people and not talking to you?

Have you not read this thread at all? By fucking over their own franchise, by putting it out on X-Box 360, by showing no signs of competence whatsoever, by claiming that they're not going to do 'what they do best', by purposely *blacklisting* fansites, indicating they do not want to discuss the game at all.
There's plenty of other stuff. Care to actually read up on something or are you going to continue to spout uninformed bullshit you justify with being an 'opinion'?

I did, and I didn't like it much. But I also played BIS games in the past, and I didn't like them either. Both were well executed, they were just not my kind of game.

Oblivion well-executed? Hah!
I never said anything about the name of the developing house, though, I only said something about the *developers*. You know, the people who actually make the stuff. *Those people* have shown they do not know what an RPG is, by claiming that they had made one with Oblivion. Those people also purposely fucked over the franchise, including established canon.

Even without the bugs, it is a boring game.

Do you have any facts, or is that just an opinion?
Also, how is this the fault of the 'hardcore' fans?

Fallout (or was it 2? It's been so long) had lots of bugs initially and was still great.

Fallout 2 was the really buggy one. Anyway, you said MOO3 killed off the franchise, not that it was a really poor game. I distinctly remember the main complaints being that it wasn't as true to the first two games(heh), thereby and that it was too buggy.

I know, very sad. And as I said, I am not saying to be carelessly enthusiastic, just to give them a chance. If you want them to talk to you, you have to offer them your hand. They probably won't, and this thread illustrates once again why.

No, not really. See, if they come out, give us an interview that shows something genuinely positive, we'd be delirious with joy.
However, they do nothing. Anything they've shown so far was negative. There is *no* reason to give them a chance anymore.
Come on, man, it's been almost 3 years.

EDIT:

sorry for the triple post, something happened with my internet connection.

Don't double post to apologise for a triple post. Yeesh.

I corrected it.

 

[Montez]

I know, very sad. And as I said, I am not saying to be carelessly enthusiastic, just to give them a chance. If you want them to talk to you, you have to offer them your hand. They probably won't, and this thread illustrates once again why.

Bethesda is a business, not some shy cute kitten that we're scaring away. We are a fan site - we all come here because we love the game and like to talk about it, not because we're making money from it or want to help a company hype their product. I don't agree with everything everyone here says, and I don't like personal attacks on developers, but I'd much rather have someone say "Fallout 3 is going to be a huge pile of steaming shit and this guy sucks" than have anyone pander to them. Fuck them; they're a corporation - if they want to use us to hype their game, then they can come to us and tell and show us why we should be interested in their game. I'm not here to help some yuppie douchebag buy a yacht or a second home; I and everyone else will praise the game when we see something worth praising, we aren't here to do their PR work for them.

And besides the above, they apparently have absolutely nothing to say about their game besides the same lines they've been saying since they bought the license. So why on earth would we go out of our way for them? So we can get a personalized write-off? "Dear NMA: Development is in progress, nothing new to add at this time. P.S. We'll continue to do what we do best. Love, Bethesda"

And since it keeps being brought up and no one seems to recall what actually happened: Interplay got the same treatment during Van Buren. Most of us were completely cynical and pessimistic about the game. JE Sawyer got flamed constantly. And hey, the developers came anyway. The fact that they came, that they tried to answer our questions, explain what they were doing and tried to allay our fears for the game significantly improved the attitude of everyone towards VB. And VB was loved only in hindsight - when the game got canned, most people were still more skeptical than not. It was only afterwards, when all the pictures and design docs and everything else got released that some people started to realize how good VB could have been. So Bethesda can shut the fuck up about "You won't like it unless it's Van Buren!" and pretending to be some unique Fallout-fan victim - no one liked Van Buren either until we had some actual proof that it might be a good game. Show us some proof that your game might be good if you want us to say good things about it.

 

[Gnol]

Opinions and fancy words.

Opinions and 'fancy words' based on *facts*, yes.

On the fact that you wouldn't like to be able to have control over party members, and that you are of the opinion there can't be a well-executed paused realtime combat system (which was just an example, because that seems to have been the hot thing to do in the last few years when revisiting once-turn based games).

This is exactly what I am talking about. For some reason, you can't seem to tolerate people with differing opinions. And behaving like a rude child isn't going to get any developers to talk to you, either.

I don't know whether you lack the capacity or just the willingness to understand what I wrote, but honestly with behaviour like yours, I don't care anymore, and I can see ever clearer why people wouldn't want to talk to you. I don't even have to make an argument, you make a pretty good one yourself.

Thank you, I consider my arguments to be very good as well.

In all seriousness, not every opinion is a valid opinion, you can actually evaluate opinions based on facts, something that seems to be out of your reach since all you've come up so far is 'But that's my opinion!'

Guess what, we base our 'opinions' on *facts* about the design of Fallout and the prior history of companies and franchises (see Ultima and X-Com for comparable cases).

Also, you haven't answered my question: what makes you think that we want a Fallout game to not be like Fallout?

Since you asked nicely: I do not and I have not said that. I said we don't want Fallout 1 or 2 (because we have them already), we want Fallout 3. And surely it won't hurt too much if FO3 were a little different here and there (like using a new engine, playing in urop or asia or africa, or even changing the combat system a bit).

Do you honestly and realistically think anybody would make a FO3 that is exactly like FO1/2? Do you want an FO3 exactly like FO1/2? There would be not much wrong with that, but really, a modding community could do that, couldn't it?

In essence, you are asking us to be okay with Bethesda betraying exactly what made us like the first games. You are asking us 'But it isn't so bad if Fallout 3 betrays the series, is it?'
Fuck that. We're a Fallout fansite, not a developer fansite.

I am not, but I also don't see Bethesda doing this. We'll have to wait and see till, well, we get to see something. I'll be the first to admit Beth shouldn't have done FO3 if it turns out wrong - I just don't think we could or should say so yet. And of course this is not a developer fansite, but we can't ignore the reality that also affects the developer. We can't ask them to make a game they think won't sell, because they obviously won't do that.

It was Black Isle Studios, IIRC.

Yes, consisting of people who had practically nothing to do with the original Fallout games.
At that point Black Isle Studios had as much to do with Fallout as EA did.

Then why was everybody crying foul when FO3 isn't being developed by Troika or whomever now? I can understand people being upset with Herve not giving it to them, but I cannot understand people being mad at Bethesda for not letting other people do it when they want to do it themselves and think they can do it well enough.

So BIS was being verbose, which of course is nice for a fansite, but Bethesda is keeping a closed lid on things as they always do, which makes you go all all emo and say "oh, they hate ME and only ME"?

Eh, what? What a crock of shit.
It doesn't make us go 'they hate us', it makes us go 'they'll fuck it up', in light of what they've done and said so far.
No one is saying that Bethesda hates us and only us.

It's starting to smell of troll here, really.

I hear people moaning about how Bethesda won't talk to NMA, which is what I was commenting on.

I did, and I didn't like it much. But I also played BIS games in the past, and I didn't like them either. Both were well executed, they were just not my kind of game.

Oblivion well-executed? Hah!
I never said anything about the name of the developing house, though, I only said something about the *developers*. You know, the people who actually make the stuff. *Those people* have shown they do not know what an RPG is, by claiming that they had made one with Oblivion. Those people also purposely fucked over the franchise, including established canon.

I do admit I didn't follow the TES franchise, so I wouldn't know how canon Oblivion is.

Even without the bugs, it is a boring game.

Do you have any facts, or is that just an opinion?
Also, how is this the fault of the 'hardcore' fans?

How do you measure fun? Of course this is an opinion. There have been bugfix patches, the last one done by fans, BTW. I didn't say it was the fault of the hardcore fans, they obviously didn't make the game. I said it was because they listened only to the hardcore fans.

Fallout (or was it 2? It's been so long) had lots of bugs initially and was still great.

Fallout 2 was the really buggy one. Anyway, you said MOO3 killed off the franchise, not that it was a really poor game. I distinctly remember the main complaints being that it wasn't as true to the first two games(heh), thereby and that it was too buggy.

MOO2 was quite different from MOO1 as well, and is regarded as the best of the series by many fans. Being different doesn't equal being worse.

I know, very sad. And as I said, I am not saying to be carelessly enthusiastic, just to give them a chance. If you want them to talk to you, you have to offer them your hand. They probably won't, and this thread illustrates once again why.

No, not really. See, if they come out, give us an interview that shows something genuinely positive, we'd be delirious with joy.
However, they do nothing. Anything they've shown so far was negative. There is *no* reason to give them a chance anymore.
Come on, man, it's been almost 3 years.

But how are they to know they'd be welcomed with open arms? If I read the news, I really wouldn't get that idea. And how are they to know which of the changes they are obviously going to make (it's been a while since FO2 after all) would go down well? The risk for them to get spat on is just too great.

EDIT:

sorry for the triple post, something happened with my internet connection.

Don't double post to apologise for a triple post. Yeesh.

I corrected it.

Thank you. I actually edited my third post to apologize. I would have corrected this myself, but I couldn't find a delete button.

 

[Per]

Do you want an FO3 exactly like FO1/2? There would be not much wrong with that, but really, a modding community could do that, couldn't it?

Evidence says no.