Fallout 3 at PAX: GayGamer and That VideoGame Blog

[EnglishMuffin]

Again brother none there is a difference between right out saying someone IS a liar and saying that someone MIGHT be a liar. As for being full of shit this goes the same way. Fallout 1/2 are completely different from fallout 3 so loving them equally is pretty hard for me to comprehend.

However I stood up for them saying that there are different levels of fallout fandom but that I may not agree with their thinking. I don't see how this is a problem at all.

It is important to read every word for what it is.

 

[thefalloutfan]

EDIT: I was replying to UncannyGarlic

I understand what you mean, and I also understand that this third game will be quite different from the previous games. At least the gameplay will be, TPP RT/VATs is much different than ISO TB. Now, in short, my point was that I loved fallout 1, and I really liked fallout 2, and even though fallout 3 will be different in some aspects, I still think I shall enjoy the game. How much shall I enjoy the game though? Will it be fulfilling like the previous games, will it be loyal story/setting wise to the previous games? That, we do not know.

Even though I appreciate the gameplay in FO1/2, I still welcome the new gameplay changes. Will it make it less of a fallout for [me]? Well personally I determine a sequel according to the story, setting etc, while gameplay is on the list, it isn't on the upper end of my list.

Hell today on the Beth forums someone said that they wouldn't like the TES series if the next game turned into an ISO game. And that was good enough to prove the point I was trying to make on the forums: it's not that TPP or ISO are superior/inferior to each other, it's just that once you get used to one of them, you'd expect the next game to be the same way.

As much as I love ISO TB, I would not want any TES games to be ISO TB. The same way, this applies to fallout fans.

That said, if the game was ISO TB, I still would have loved it, obviously. But since it is in Beth's hands, their games are TPP, creating an ISO TB game just isn't their way of making games. Also, the money aspect, even though most reasons are wrong, or sometimes outright stupid, we can't deny that a TPP game will attract more people towards the game. Sad, but this is the reality.

I realise I might have went a bit off topic, sorry.

 

[taag]

However I stood up for them saying that there are different levels of fallout fandom but that I may not agree with their thinking. I don't see how this is a problem at all.

I don't see over what point are you people arguing. Can anyone predict the way Interplay's Fallout Online will affect this fandom? I believe it's not too hard to imagine.

 

[Brother None]

Again brother none there is a difference between right out saying someone IS a liar and saying that someone MIGHT be a liar.

Not really, both are insults/trolls.

Can anyone predict the way Interplay's Fallout Online will affect this fandom?

Yes. We already love it.

Mostly because they love us back

 

[EnglishMuffin]

What do you mean there is no difference.

There IS no god. There MIGHT not be a god. One is open to interpretation while the other is not. While using "is" there is a definitive position on the topic whereas using "might" means that there are feelings on both side of the argument.

And to go back to the cross-forum trolling argument: how else am I supposed to suggest that there are others that do not agree with an argument. I either say, "There is a forum out there that doesn't feel the same way", or I tell the name of the forum so that the person can actually see where my argument is based. With the former statement I have zero information to back up my stance which would make it pretty easy for one to come to the conclusion that I am simply making up said statement.

Taag:

MMO Fallout will basically be World of Warcraft with guns. Every MMO wants to be WoW after all. The thing about a fallout MMO is that you will completely lose the feeling of loneliness since you would be in large groups. Even if they limit the groups to about 5 there will be dozens of these 5 man teams wandering around making the wasteland filled with inhabitants. There will be absolutely no storyline at all on top of this, just people who hand out a quest to you. On top of this every character would feel like the hero. Instead of just YOU(the PC) being the hero there will be thousands of heros.

The only thing I can think to make it somewhat good would to have an ever changing world with many many factions. There would just be basic fallout equipment and some new vehicles. If they could transform the world into a mad max state and remove the power of leveling to something small then it might work. But you would throw out all the fallout rpg factors. It would also have to be solely PVP. It could work but it would be Fallout in name only and have very little rpg to it. Not that MMO's have much rpg elements to them anyway, it's mostly just grinding.

 

[Brother None]

What do you mean there is no difference.

Did I say "there is no difference"?

how else am I supposed to suggest that there are others that do not agree with an argument.

By saying "here is a forum with people making an argument" without suggesting they are liars and full of shit for making that argument.

You're making an undue issue out of this, and avoided answering this simple question: Yes or no: isn't "they might be lying and full of shit" simply an unnecessary remark to make? What purpose did it serve except to discredit those people?

Fallout will basically be World of Warcraft with guns. Every MMO wants to be WoW after all.

Jumping to conclusions much? You might want to wait until it's announced.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

You claim that both are insults/trolls and I claim that they cannot be the same because both words have completely different meanings.

Does it really matter what I suggest? I could have said that they might all be fantastic people who love their puppies endlessly. But they also might be liars and full of shit. I could have simply said, "Although I agree with you dutch, there are others on the official bethesda boards that do not." I chose to express myself in the way that fits me. I at no point blatantly insulted anyone. My comment really had no position for or against.

"You're making an undue issue out of this, and avoided answering this simple question: Yes or no: isn't "they might be lying and full of shit" simply an unnecessary remark to make? What purpose did it serve except to discredit those people?"

A large part of making arguments it to discredit your opponent. I have my opinion and they have theirs. You are trying to discredit my statement with yours. You see it as an insult and I see it as a difference of opinion with absolutely no stance on them being liars or not. You have your opinion and I have mine and honestly don't think it's right to force yours onto me.

They might also be Chinese jet pilots. Hard to tell. Oops now everyone posting on the official fallout 3 message boards are Chinese jet pilots.


As for your last statement about my large assumptions. I assume that companies would want to mimic one of the largest gaming companies as well as the formula for their huge MMO success. A lot of companies did it with blizzard's rts hero model when they made WC3. Also look at halo and call of duty. Hell even emil said that he and todd played both those games to base their combat system off of. It would be foolish not to think that gaming companies rip off good ideas from one another.

 

[Brother None]

You claim that both are insults/trolls and I claim that they cannot be the same because both words have completely different meanings.

Actually, not to make too fine a point of it, but I determine. Probably should've vatted it instead of trying to discuss it, huh?

I at no point blatantly insulted anyone.

'k, please work with me here. Go outside. Find a big, portly guy. Walk up to him and say "you might be a moron".

See if he's not insulted.

I assume that companies would want to mimic one of the largest gaming companies as well as the formula for their huge MMO success.

So far all MMOs wanting to be WoW has meant failure for all of those MMOs. Maybe FOOL will learn from that. Maybe not. We'll see. However, you said "Fallout will basically be World of Warcraft with guns". That's jumping to conclusions, just like saying "Fallout 3 will be Morrowind with guns" right after it announced was. We didn't like that back then either.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

'k, please work with me here. Go outside. Find a big, portly guy. Walk up to him and say "you might be a moron".

See if he's not insulted.

This is a completely different subject from me discussing with people on a forum who claim they love fallout 1/2 equally to fallout 3 and picking out a complete stranger. Again you have to look at the context of it. However if I added "but it's hard to tell", I could probably pull it off. However if he was a moron then he would not know that he was being insulted, but if he was insulted than he might not be.

So far all MMOs wanting to be WoW has meant failure for all of those MMOs. Maybe FOOL will learn from that. Maybe not. We'll see. However, you said "Fallout will basically be World of Warcraft with guns". That's jumping to conclusions, just like saying "Fallout 3 will be Morrowind with guns" right after it announced was. We didn't like that back then either.

So it's Oblivion with guns....
Let's also note that it is Interplay. Let us also note that the company Titus that put out the game Superman 64 ALSO gained a majority interest in Interplay in August of 2001 AND naming Hervé Caen CEO of the company after the departure of Interplay’s Brian Fargo.

By the way, thank you very very much for allowing this discussion. It has been tons of fun. Haven't had a good argument in quite a while and feel like I'm getting a bit rusty at it.

 

[Brother None]

This is a completely different subject

Not really. Especially considering how strict we are on cross-site trolling. No amount of qualifiers are going to make calling someone stupid not an insult, really.

And you have yet to answer what the remark added to the discussion anyway.

So it's Oblivion with guns....

Sure, that's what it turned out to be, but it was a bit silly to just assume that was what it would be right from the bat.

On the one hand I regret that we treated Rosh somewhat unfairly considering he was right, and our "don't jump to conclusions"-policy seems a bit silly. On the other hand, I think it gives us the high ground and that gives me comfort, we tried avoiding being silly enough to assume but had plenty to fear, and what Bethesda did was substantiate most of those fears.

By the way, thank you very very much for allowing this discussion.

I sure as hell regret it. But I can't vat it anymore now since it's peripherally a discussion on forum policy and we never vat those.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Not really. Especially considering how strict we are on cross-site trolling. No amount of qualifiers are going to make calling someone stupid not an insult, really.

And you have yet to answer what the remark added to the discussion anyway.

I did! I swears it on the precious!
I simply pointed that there were people who did not agree with dutch. What my opinion was should really have no bearing on anything. Again I had no intention for the comment to be taken as a cross-site troll. The remark alluded to where my position stood on the argument. I could have said it nicer, but that isn't my style.

Sure, that's what it turned out to be, but it was a bit silly to just assume that was what it would be right from the bat.

On the one hand I regret that we treated Rosh somewhat unfairly considering he was right, and our "don't jump to conclusions"-policy seems a bit silly. On the other hand, I think it gives us the high ground and that gives me comfort, we tried avoiding being silly enough to assume but had plenty to fear, and what Bethesda did was substantiate most of those fears.

I don't jump to conclusions until I have looked at evidence. The evidence of the gaming industry in the past 10 years and the companies as well as a few other things usually point me in the right direction as what to expect. I haven't really seen a company take a completely new direction on anything or surprise me. Sure it is easy to say, "We don't know what the future will hold" because that is a correct statement, but at the same time, we have mountains of evidence from previous years which makes our assumptions stand up quite well to scrutiny.

Oh and why do you say you will "Vat" things? Doesn't that imply that the statement will out of the "vatting" stronger and better than before? Or that it won't be able to breed more like it? Or that it will have an unusual long life? What happens if the statement is female?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

The problem with saying that someone might be something is that it implies that there is evidence to suggest it when there doesn't have to be. It raises the question regardless of whether or not it's valid or factual. It'd be like the press saying that a presidential candidate might be a baby eating, satan worshiping, nazi. All in all, the question it raises is ad hominem so even if it is a valid question, it's not a valid point in a logical argument.

 

[Yoshi525]

Not actually confirmed: you could beat people "to death" in Oblivion too, they'd just stay down for a while and get back up.

I hope it isn't like that

 

[Ausir]

I hope it isn't like that

It is, at least for some essential NPCs.

 

[Phancypants]

I hope it isn't like that

It is, at least for some essential NPCs.

It isn't. They started at the end of the main quest, and worked their way backwards. There are some that can only be knocked unconcious, but the instant they are not 100% critical to being able to finish the main quest, feel free to drop them. In interviews they said they spent a lot of time minimizing the amount of essential NPC's.

In Oblivion, it was a yes/no option for the character. If they were essential for the first 10 minutes, they were invincible forever.

 

[Yoshi525]

It isn't. They started at the end of the main quest, and worked their way backwards. There are some that can only be knocked unconcious, but the instant they are not 100% critical to being able to finish the main quest, feel free to drop them. In interviews they said they spent a lot of time minimizing the amount of essential NPC's.

In Oblivion, it was a yes/no option for the character. If they were essential for the first 10 minutes, they were invincible forever.

I suppose that helps. A bit. Still spastic though.

 

[Matt K]

It isn't. They started at the end of the main quest, and worked their way backwards. There are some that can only be knocked unconscious, but the instant they are not 100% critical to being able to finish the main quest, feel free to drop them. In interviews they said they spent a lot of time minimizing the amount of essential NPC's.

In Oblivion, it was a yes/no option for the character. If they were essential for the first 10 minutes, they were invincible forever.

Out of curiosity, where did you get this from. The last I read was what Ausir said.

 

[Ausir]

Todd said:

In regards to essential NPCs, it works like Oblivion, in that when they "die" they get knocked "unconscious" and get up a little while later. It worked well in Oblivion, so we kept that system, as you can still attack everyone that you want, and get at least a small benefit (being able to avoid them while they are down). I will say that the number of essential characters is minute compared to Oblivion and we've gone to pretty big lengths to cover a lot of people's deaths, but sometimes that's just not possible.

 

[Ad Astra]

In Oblivion, it was a yes/no option for the character. If they were essential for the first 10 minutes, they were invincible forever.

Nope, that's not how it worked at all. For example, Baurus is invincible during Oblivion's tutorial but is very much mortal when you begin tracking down the cult's books. The same is true of Jauffre, Mankar Camoran, Maglir and a whole host of other well-known Oblivion NPCs.