GamingTrend said:
Wondering when the serious questions start.
Aha... not saying they didn't pay you anything, just joking. So you're assumptions and how you responded to our assumptions sounded as if they paid you something.
GamingTrend said:
Care to quote me where I said anyone lied about anything?
No, because you didn't use that words. You actually said that the RadiantAI hat 'shortcomings', and that Beth is now trying to do better. While Beth told that the Radiant AI would be the same as they claim now it will be.
And that's a part where you're now believing them, after they 'lied' before. And it seems as you admit that there, at least for me
GamingTrend said:
See previous messages about judging versus conclusion.
GamingTrend said:
Hard to judge a massive game by only 50 minutes of play. I suspect that a great deal of tuning and re-recording will go into the game prior to launch.
Conclusions can only be drawn after judging an information. I mean you have to judge if something is true you was told, and then start to draw conclusions.
I mean otherwise it would be like building another tower of Pisa...
By the way, mind to point me toward where you're talking about the difference between drawing conclusions from given information and judging informations?
And it seems if you choose to believe what you were told, without being critical about it.
GamingTrend said:
About the 'you should be happy to get at least some new game after years'-"argument'"
Another point, did you ever went to an Star Wars convention claiming that all people who are upset with Ep 1 - 3, should 'shut up' because they got some sequel ?
I am proud to say I've never been to a SW Convention. *shudder* Mouthbreathers. On the other hand, these same "Look, I'm a Rodian!" people were waving their plastic lightsabers and cheering while lining up at EPIII when I went 2 E3s ago, then condemning it after the saw the whole movie. My point? Conclusions come at the END, not the beginning.
Why are you then making previews with informations? Or articles about how a game might turn out? Why are you defending what Beth said and so on? Seems quite illogical if you really think you can only say something about a game after you have played through it (even after you state that a lot people don't play thorugh games).
GamingTrend said:
That isn't what I'm hearing from most. Most people wan't a quickly produced zero risk more of the same product. Won't happen.
Just recognized a bigger mistake in what i wrote, i meant (i think you got it, but just to change that):
"Fans won't be happy with some cheap or bad new thing but with smart improvments of old concepts."
So we pretty much agree here i think.
While i still think that there are no 'zero risk' 1:1 copies that can really be succesful. Because as far as i know, even games like Tony Hawks Pro Skater, or NHL have improvments and new things (at least this was true for NHL 97 and 98(?), wich where the last i played), while for example games with a story won't never be a zero-risk thing.
So yes, fans want only better versions of their old games.
But why do you think should Fallout fans be happy with something that seems to be a high-risk game?
GameTrend said:
Right. Dead silence is better. I was listening and watching intently, not playing, so of course it caught my attention.
So you recognized a subtle done music change, while you missed other points (at least that's the impression i got reading some of your Q&A over at Beth). And no, i'm not trying to critisize you, i mean it's hard to capture everything watching some 'movie' (gamedemo), but therefore it's hard to believe that you catched some subtle done music change while people around you might whispering with each other, Todd making some remarks and so on.
GamingTrend said:
You are too lazy to quote and I don't recall saying this, so moot.
Okay, i've to admit i missed you there a bit. You told, that a lot of people a quite critizising a lof of RTS for being not enough inoventive in the last year.
GamingTrend said:
Ok, as for the 'not faithful' comment. I visited another developer who was being faithful to a turn based trilogy of games. I have to admit that looking at the isometric quasi-3D mess that was made was just a nightmare. I'm sure some folks will be all over this title, but there is no way that it'll ever have enough of a fanbase to be called a 'success'. The fact of the matter is, people (well, not everyone) have moved on and games have to adapt and change with them or be left behind. Many RTS titles came out last year and got slammed for 'old school dirt-farming' conventions as they didn't bring something new to the table. Perhaps we'll all find that this is a good compromise - a new way to experience what we all love. Just my 2 cents.
I think you're speaking about JA3, so didn't they told you, that the graphic isn't finished now? And that the game will be released 2008 ? So why do you draw the conclusion that this game will still look bad in 2008, while you say Fallout 3 will get better every day?
Because you trust Beth more then some russian developer? While we distrust Beht.
GamingTrend said:
Is there a question coming at some point or more bashing?
Why should there be a question? I just told you, that technical there is the possibility, that today's iso-view in 3D might have objects that are as detailed as Oblivion-Objects, but just not shown all the time this way.
I mean you tried to tell us that FPS has to be more detailed then ISO, and that's not true. But okay, forget about this point, as it's a weak one
GamingTrend said:
No, but odds are if the butt stock is busted on weapon A it'd be hard to use, but if I take a good one off of weapon B and replace it it'd be better.
Yeah, that's right. But that's seems as if i would have to assume, that two damaged weapons are allways 'lego-blocks'. But as i said, that might be okay. And it might also be to early to clearly judge that. I just wanted to point out, that it really depends on what parts are damages, and that interchangeable parts don't mean that you can have one fully repaired weapon...
GamingTrend said:
Bad_Karma said:
Sorry, a demo for the press might at least have some balance behind it, especially such 'This must be the uber weapon' things, or at least they should have mentioned it, don't you think so?
There was a question you either overread, or choose to overread.
But okay i will take a second shoot in making it a question
Why do you think, there isn't a balance now for their uberweapon ina demo wich they made to to give you the impression of the end product? Especially on their 'uber weapon', wich is just pretty remarkable and therefore will be pretty much remembered?
So why do you think, it's then better to assume it isn't balanced yet, then to assume that it's what we have in the lagter game?
Is it, because the negative assumption puts the game into a bad looking light?
GamingTrend said:
Any proof? I am not my 'colleague' and I made no such claim.
GamingTrend said:
Didn't see or say anything of the sort. How is anyone a liar (much less a shameless one) if this was never said? The point was that there would be plenty of dialog options and a properly built AI, not that the two were somehow married.
Okay, you didn't told us good dialogue but about plenty dialogue options. So how many did you actually saw?
And sorry, i was somewhat generalizing you with other journalists, sorry about that. And while we often get told 'we saw a lot', and 'there will be a lot', a colleague of you told us, that he didn't saw that much, but there have to be a much of them.
And he saw the same dialoge-lines as you did.
GamingTrend said:
How about writing around the lines: "Todd told us, that there will be plenty dialoges and quite a lot options. And at least in the demo it seemed as if they are doing that well" (or something in better english, so sorry, english isn't my first language
).
But no, again no signs of being 'sceptical' at all.
Let me hand you a pen - go ahead and start your own site and wriite your own articles.
Is that a way to go over constructive critique in journalism? Sure my post was a over-the-top, but please come on. This isn't a way to work with constructive critique, i think.
But you're doing it all the time "Go make your own game if you think you can do this that way".
It's nearly the same as:
'Go and make your own streets if you think there shouldn't be big holes in them!'
'Go and make your own rocket-shield if you think it should be done in another way!'
Yeah that might be over the top again, but i hope you see how bad such an statement is.
GamingTrend said:
And therefore a lot people here think of you game-journalists as sheeps following happy to the slaughterhouse or corrupt people who getting covered in money, if they keep telling us how well all will be...
My site is 100% run out of my pocket. I make a very little bit to offset that cost from the minimal banner ads.
I didn't say you're getting paid, or being a sheep, but i told that it might seem this way if the overall gaming journalism seems to be only positive about games of big publishers/developers.
GamingTrend said:
So they should use fuck and so on, because we are using such words today, under much less pressure?
Just explaining why it could happen. I didn't design the thing.
I know, and i'm just pointing out, that this reasoning isn't that good, because Fallout 3 is based upon some fictional world, as was LotR, Harry Potter and so on.
By the way, i think i made this clear with the parts you left away of this part, at least i hope so.
GamersTrend said:
What do you think about the (i think) succesful Overlord? - Know any game that's on the market that's very similar?
My review -
http://gamingtrend.com/Reviews/review/review.php?ReviewID=865
I just had a quick look at it, and you gave it a good rating (as i would also
). So you see, it's a game that got good reviews but strayed away from the dominating game-conepts. And therefore got some more attention...
GameTrend said:
blah about journalism sucking
Right. I should speculate about a ton of maybes and could bes instead of what I actually see. I report what I can see or lay my hands on. I review what I can play without pressure from a dev/pub. I destroy titles that botch good gameplay design. I praise the ones that get it right. I'm honest. If you disagree, well...that is your right.
Yes, i'm disagreeing a bit on that. As i said in my second post, you're article is one of the better ones. But personally i'm missing there a bit of scepsis, might only be my feeling but okay.
Otherwise it seemed to me, as if you're defending Beth here, what i also count into your journalistic work. But that might also be only my perception.
But i'm also talkin about a lot of people here (and also friend of mine who aren't visiting this site), got the feeling that the gaming journalism was better around 1996...
GamingTrend said:
So i hope i didn't get to sarcastic or cynic or whatever, but you're coming with arguments, that lacking some points.
Your opinion.
That's right, but not mine alone, as it seems.
GamingTrend said:
Actually all a lot of us are asking for from you and your colleagues is being a bit more sceptical and try to write up some more neutral and objective articles. Wich also may contain less faults, and maybe more of the differences between F1/2 and F3...
I think I did that. Just because I wasn't so negative as to fit into the generally pessamistic view of some doesn't mean it wasn't a good article. I stand behind it.
As i said later, i re-read your article, and it's one of the better ones (something i would rate with a 'C' or 'C+', but i might be a over-sceptical).
I don't say you would have to be as negativ as folks are here, but i think you could have told the people more about the differences between F1/2 and F3, as your side, shouldn't have problems to have an a bit longer article.
Also i've wanted it a bit more 'okay we saw until now, so i've got hope, that we will get a good game' instead of writting:
Gaming Trend article said:
A chair that you otherwise might have overlooked in Fallout is there, brought to life by the game engine. Grating that might have flashed the text “Rattle rattle” on the screen in the original title instead whirrs with a mechanical hum. The detail was absolutely incredible and clearly shows the amount of work that is being put into recreating the post-apocalyptic world we’ve all come to love.
It don't show the amount that is put into making the whole world that way, but it shows how much amount is put into this single chair. Therefore i would have loved to read (i've to made some assumption to change it, so if they are not true, feel free to say that
):
"Bethesda explained, that they are taking the Firs person route, because they think, it's the best way to present a living enviroment, wich Fallout 1 and 2 also aimed for. As en example they presented us a chair, wich pendants in Fallout 1 & 2 was pretty small and might have been overlooked easily, this one wasn't as easy to overlook. Also the chair made some nice 'mechanical hum' when being rotated by the player. So far it looks as if Bethesda is putting a good amount of work into recreating the post-apocalyptic world we all love that much.
"
So yeah, i think some poeple will still see this to positive other will think of it being to negative. But i personally think, this would have been more neutral than what you wrote Mr.Burke.
But as i see, there's no sense behind trying to convince you how you've to do your job...
Thanks for coming here and at least sharing your opinion and answering questions.
I hope i dind't offend you too much
