Deacon FO4 voice actor leaks existence of FO5 pre-production

ZigzagPX4 said:
Bethesda Game Studios is a fairly small team, for an AAA developer. Little over 100 people - roughly half of CD Projekt RED's size. Their publisher's wish to expand the company into Montreal reflects this.
Click to expand...
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
Skryim development and marketing budget $85 Million
Total Skyrim sales revenue $1,390,000,000

Their employees must be pretty damn well paid. Maybe that's why they ain't hiring more and churn out games that are as broadly appealing as possible: moneymoneymoney.
 
Isn't it sad that a lot of other people in the 51% ruin things for the 49.9 percent?

Majority of 12 year olds caused fallout to be designed by hacks. The same way the united states election is becoming a joke between shillary and donald "build a wall" trump.

Always have shitters who ruin things for everyonelse.
 
Mr Fish said:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
Skryim development and marketing budget $85 Million
Total Skyrim sales revenue $1,390,000,000

Their employees must be pretty damn well paid. Maybe that's why they ain't hiring more and churn out games that are as broadly appealing as possible: moneymoneymoney.
Click to expand...

I doubt that, it's more likely that the publishers got most of it.

I'm actually curious as to how many NMAers, who keep speaking out about how "video game industry is greedy and profit-focused", would go back on their on statements and cast aside morals in favour of money, if they were the developers themselves?

It's like when people say "this world deserves a zombie apocalypse because it is fucked with the stupid masses, dumb politicians and greedy corporations", boasting about how years of movies and video games have prepared them for the actual apocalypse, when in truth they would shit their pants and be dead within the first hour of the outbreak.

This is why I try my best to rarely ever make this kind of promise IRL. "I will never sell out for money!", "I will be a philanthropist when rich!", and "I will always put my creative vision first!", these are the worst kind of statements to make. How do any of you know you won't sell out when the time comes? I sure as hell don't know about myself. I definitely would like to put creativity before money but if one day I'm put on the spot, I don't want to be a complete hypocrite.

Sorry, I've never been very good with principles. :shrug:
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
I'm actually curious as to how many NMAers, who keep speaking out about how "video game industry is greedy and profit-focused", would go back on their on statements and cast aside morals in favour of money, if they were the developers themselves?
Click to expand...
In 10 years time is it possible I could become a rapist?
Sure.

So what?

"What if" scenario's like that are meaningless as we can't predict all of the thousands of little variables that led our lives up to those points that could change our perception of what is right and wrong.

Would I sell out with my current mind-set? Nope.
Might I if I actually got the chance to a few years down the line? Sure.
But me a few years from now and me at this moment in time are two different people.

You can't be on the fence about everything. It's okay to take moral stances. And if those stances ever changes and you feel like you're justified in your change then guess what? People change. And that's ok. I used to think that faggots were disgusting when I was young and I grew up to become bi-sexual. I'm not gonna hide it or be ashamed of it. I used to be a certain kind of person but I'm not the same person any more.

It's not hypocritical to change as a person. To either grow or regress. It's hypocritical to, for example, say that you think cheating is morally wrong and then you go and cheat yourself and you still hold that position that cheating is morally wrong but try to justify your cheating as if it was ok.

If I one day down the line got to a position where I could sell out my own integrity for cashmoney and I did it and I still proclaimed that others that do the same are scumbags but I aren't 'then' I'm a hypocrite. But if I change as a person and my moral stance is altered then I'm simply not a hypocrite. I held certain beliefs and they changed. Alternatively, pretending that you never held those previous beliefs when you in fact did and they're on record means you're a liar, not a hypocrite.

If we're a hypocrite for changing who we are over the years then every single human being on this planet (excluding babies maybe) would be a hypocrite thousands of times over.

So what's the point with being on the fence?

I have lofty dreams of doing something creative and I can't imagine myself selling out. If that changes then I guess I changed into a greedy piece of shit. But that doesn't mean I necessarily changed into a hypocrite.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
I'm actually curious as to how many NMAers, who keep speaking out about how "video game industry is greedy and profit-focused", would go back on their on statements and cast aside morals in favour of money, if they were the developers themselves?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be able to help create a game for shit I'll admit. Not that I would ever bother with that stuff but if I did I sure as hell wouldn't boast about what clearly isn't in the game I was developing only to reveal a big steaming horse turd of a game if that was the case, that's for sure.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
This is why I try my best to rarely ever make this kind of promise IRL. "I will never sell out for money!", "I will be a philanthropist when rich!", and "I will always put my creative vision first!", these are the worst kind of statements to make. How do any of you know you won't sell out when the time comes? I sure as hell don't know about myself. I definitely would like to put creativity before money but if one day I'm put on the spot, I don't want to be a complete hypocrite.

Sorry, I've never been very good with principles. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I work for various NFPs and make a lot less money than I otherwise could for the sake of doing something I feel is worthwhile. I have nothing to prove. Don't assume too much about perfect strangers, you rarely come out of it looking clever.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
I'm actually curious as to how many NMAers, who keep speaking out about how "video game industry is greedy and profit-focused", would go back on their on statements and cast aside morals in favour of money, if they were the developers themselves?
Click to expand...
For a job in any chosen field money, location, environment, are all factors in whether or not to continue working for a company, so rank and file at BGS are simply doing a job. However, if I were someone who considered what I did as creating art, then no I would not sacrifice my art for money.
 
Alright, alright, I didn't mean to set anyone off on anything. It's just my personal opinion - I don't like being very demonstrative of a particular moral stance and then changing it later, so I prefer to stay neutral and on the fence as much as I possibly can.

Mr Fish said:
If I one day down the line got to a position where I could sell out my own integrity for cashmoney and I did it and I still proclaimed that others that do the same are scumbags but I aren't 'then' I'm a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

That's closer to my intended point than what I stated, actually. It's a mostly baseless assumption and accusation to say so, but I believe there are a number of people here who might do exactly that. Fine for them, but speaking as someone who can be very hypocritical at times, I strongly avoid as much hypocrisy as I possibly can. I would also like to state that I do know the different between going back on your word and criticising someone for something that you do too.

Spacemunkey said:
For a job in any chosen field money, location, environment, are all factors in whether or not to continue working for a company, so rank and file at BGS are simply doing a job.
Click to expand...

Well, do you believe you someone should be criticised for just doing their job? I've never found that to be very reasonable. There are exceptions, but still.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Alright, alright, I didn't mean to set anyone off on anything. It's just my personal opinion - I don't like being very demonstrative of a particular moral stance and then changing it later, so I prefer to stay neutral and on the fence as much as I possibly can.
Click to expand...
Don't want to derail too much, but you're missing out on a lot of life if you're too worried about ever being wrong or changing your mind to take a stance on anything. Being wrong or changing your mind isn't the end of the world as long as you're aware of and can admit to whatever it is you're doing.

ZigzagPX4 said:
Well, do you believe you someone should be criticised for just doing their job? I've never found that to be very reasonable. There are exceptions, but still.
Click to expand...
Might as well ask how long is a piece of string. This question is usually framed in such a way that the only reasonable answer seems to be "no." Perhaps a better question is whether someone should be criticised for doing their job badly, in which case the obvious answer is "yes."
 
Of course they should be criticized if they did their job badly, like if you went to a fancy restaurant and the cook burnt your food to a crisp yet expected you to pay the full price and "deal with it".
 
Lanfear said:
Don't want to derail too much, but you're missing out on a lot of life if you're too worried about ever being wrong or changing your mind to take a stance on anything. Being wrong or changing your mind isn't the end of the world as long as you're aware of and can admit to whatever it is you're doing.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I enjoy the neutral stance I usually take. Besides, I say neutral, but in truth there's always going to be bias in my subconscious whether or not I want to be biased anyways.

Lanfear said:
Might as well ask how long is a piece of string. This question is usually framed in such a way that the only reasonable answer seems to be "no." Perhaps a better question is whether someone should be criticised for doing their job badly, in which case the obvious answer is "yes."
Click to expand...

In the case of Bethesda, are they actually doing their job badly? Fallout 4 is functional and it has gameplay value. It sold very well. Not every Fallout 4 fan is in denial, the game doesn't have zero fun. I suppose it falls to what your subjective opinion is on the definition of "their job". Of course, I'm just referring to the employees themselves, not the people in charge.

MercenarySnake said:
Of course they should be criticized if they did their job badly, like if you went to a fancy restaurant and the cook burnt your food to a crisp yet expected you to pay the full price and "deal with it".
Click to expand...

Okay... so if you went to fancy restaurant and the food is cooked and prepared in way you don't recognise, and you don't like the taste, is that them not doing their job? Or is that you just not liking the result?
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
In the case of Bethesda, are they actually doing their job badly? Fallout 4 is functional and it has gameplay value. It sold very well. Not every Fallout 4 fan is in denial, the game doesn't have zero fun. I suppose it falls to what your subjective opinion is on the definition of "their job". Of course, I'm just referring to the employees themselves, not the people in charge.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. The question never applies to people who are in an overall position of authority and who are responsible for enforcing bad decisions on their subordinates. Those people can always be criticised. But a lot of the people who were just doing their job in Fallout 4 did do a shitty job, especially the ones who handled the VO work. Both the talent and the direction. And I don't imagine shit like Kid in a Fridge was an order from up on high, either; that was likely the brain child of a talentless writer with no sense of what's funny and what's idiotic. And so on.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Thanks, but I enjoy the neutral stance I usually take. Besides, I say neutral, but in truth there's always going to be bias in my subconscious whether or not I want to be biased anyways.



In the case of Bethesda, are they actually doing their job badly? Fallout 4 is functional and it has gameplay value. It sold very well. Not every Fallout 4 fan is in denial, the game doesn't have zero fun. I suppose it falls to what your subjective opinion is on the definition of "their job". Of course, I'm just referring to the employees themselves, not the people in charge.



Okay... so if you went to fancy restaurant and the food is cooked and prepared in way you don't recognise, and you don't like the taste, is that them not doing their job? Or is that you just not liking the result?
Click to expand...
The point is if they did bad at their job then they should be criticized
Did Bethesda create a functional game that made lots and lots of money? Sure! Absolutely!

Was it good though? Nope not even close, you could say this is subjective but just look at this game in comparison to say New Vegas for example. New Vegas has good quests, decent gunplay, dialogue, and some other things. Fallout 4? A game where you shoot and kill things, engage in redundant dialogue, a barebones story, helping settlements in repetitive quests, and crafting junk for settlements.

Just because they made lots of money doesn't mean the game is good. If the game doesn't do its job by being a good game than it deserves criticism. Swing low user scores shows they did a shit job.
 
MercenarySnake said:
The point is if they did bad at their job then they should be criticized
Did Bethesda create a functional game that made lots and lots of money? Sure! Absolutely!

Was it good though? Nope not even close, you could say this is subjective but just look at this game in comparison to say New Vegas for example. New Vegas has good quests, decent gunplay, dialogue, and some other things. Fallout 4? A game where you shoot and kill things, engage in redundant dialogue, a barebones story, helping settlements in repetitive quests, and crafting junk for settlements.

Just because they made lots of money doesn't mean the game is good. If the game doesn't do its job by being a good game than it deserves criticism. Swing low user scores shows they did a shit job.
Click to expand...

Yeah, look, that's kind of the point. I think they did a just-below-average job, you think they did a shit job, but "good job" depends on who the person judging the job is. That's all I meant. I personally feel New Vegas is infinitely better than Fallout 4, but if someone came and argued that Fallout 4 is subjectively better than New Vegas, they wouldn't be wrong.

Besides, even actual good games deserve criticism anyways, so the point is kind of moot.
 
ZigzagPX4 said:
Yeah, look, that's kind of the point. I think they did a just-below-average job, you think they did a shit job, but "good job" depends on who the person judging the job is. That's all I meant. I personally feel New Vegas is infinitely better than Fallout 4, but if someone came and argued that Fallout 4 is subjectively better than New Vegas, they wouldn't be wrong.

Besides, even actual good games deserve criticism anyways, so the point is kind of moot.
Click to expand...
I can understand you were trying to use different peoples taste when it came to liking Fallout 4 or not but who could honestly want repetitive quests and all shoot 'end up gameplay with nothing else to offer besides putting together preset building pieces to create settlements as opposed to a game with things like good quests that give you multiple options and doesn't treat the player like a braindead idiot.

Yeah of course good games deserve criticism but a lot less than a bad game because it's a "good" game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top