Fallout 3 coverage from here and there

[Tyshalle]

It's all good, man.

 

[Bad_Karma]

@Tyshalle you got nearly all wrong you could get wrong.
1. you offended people with your post. You ever heard of communication theory? Message vs. information? If you won't accept that offended people here, you're an idiot.
2. There were only milk cows and completly changed games? WRONG! Go watch Sid Meiers Pirates! Surely no Cash Cow...
GTA3, NeverWinterNights2, even upcoming games like Fable 2...
3. We shouldn't complain about someone using the wrong name for a product? - Right... or no, wait wrong!
You know that companies sue each other asses because of 'titles' ? I mean a big 'german' company wanted to forbid the use of the german word for 'children' in titles of products for sweets...
I think you didn't pass your reality check. And you know, people feel like Stock-holder here. Like most fans we think that some of the IP is belonging to the fans.
4. Okay, point out one better way to go about it? I'm really interested, because your argument isn't backed up by any fucking thing until now... By the way, even the fact that NMA is well known all over the places where people talk about Fallout 3 is a pro point for being here. Because you get media coverage...
5. You never came up with a new argument backing you old up, so you're also just using the same childish argument over and over (I'm right! You're not!).
6. Your wrong about your 'Name does not change gameplay'-argument, we are argumenting that when the gameplay changes it should have an impact on the title...
So we all know soy milk isn't milk. It's from soy... so therefore it isn't called milk, but soy milk! And soy milk (i never tried it) tastes worse when you order milk and get soy milk. That's just a simple fact, as restaurant critics that will kill your little restaurant off, if they order milk and get soy milk.
But if you want to call a spoon, fork, please feel free to do so.

And by the way, if i want to buy a dandelion and i get a rose i will be pissed of... as it seems you won't eh?

7. your logic is flawed, and therfore you won't win anyone over... not because your 'trying to be rational'...

But now enough of this shit... i shouldn't have even started to point out your faults, because you will surely say i'm completly irrational. And as you said, complaining about things is stupid...
So why should i debate with you, when you're complaining about us?...

Sp peace!

 

[fedaykin]

Tyshalle, come on, man. This is the tired old "YOURE RABID FANBOYS YOU'VE MADE UP YOUR MINDS ANYWAY " argument. To someone who regularly reads the news comments, it's pretty obvious when someone says something like:

And most of these "expressed opinions" by you guys are far more hostile than anything I've said, so I'm finding it difficult to take these "how dare you attack us" babblings seriously.

and

But specific criticisms targeted at Fallout 3 as a sequel don't really occur.

that they have not been reading what is actually said about F3. Do you expect to have a serious debate when you come spouting that crap? At least have the decency to occasionally be more original and occasionally target specific points of debate, like Bodybag does.

This is a community that likes Fallout and wants a sequel that it considers proper. We don't protest in front of the Bethesda HQ, we don't gather round and dress up in vault suits, we don't spam a million pointless internet petitions. We merely post on a forum. Now, what is so wrong about liking a game and having an opinion about its sequel?

Many of us actually take the time to respond to people who simply say "you're fanatical, get a life", and then a guy like you comes and tells us WE can't engage in rational debate. What the fuck?

I'll bet on this: the day one of your favourite games or movies or whatnot gets a sequel that is so far off it's not even funny, you are going to be complaining somewhere to somebody that it's not good as a sequel. Mark my words.

 

[MapMan]

When I read all the comments on various random review sites/blogs I feel sad. It's sad to see how many people got fooled by bethesda and they are willing to do anything, to defend fallout 3...

 

[Brother None]

BN, did you just throw that sorethumbs blog in to be funny?

No, I posted it because DaC did and I figured what the hell.

I don't consider it a good article and don't really know the blog. But hell, I've covered mediocre articles from half-known blogs that are pro-Fallout 3 before, why not post anti-Fallout 3 as well?

Which is a great flip, and I'm sure you felt that was a great line, but it really doesn't hurt my point any. The fact that I only show up around here once every few months while you basically make the same arguments several times a day, every day, shows the enormous difference between the two of us.

Really, does it now?

You see, in a wider sense I simply like to support the kind of games I like, whether they be RTS/TBSs or RPGs of the more traditional type. Fallout is just a part of that. In other words, I'm just here to support my hobby, to do what I enjoy.

I think seething over other people's opinions really is - and I don't mean to offend here - several steps up in the pathetic ladder, from there.

I don't care about your individual motives much because I have no reason to care about you, so all I see here is someone who came on to tell us we shouldn't care about something because hey industry reality. If you were interested in convincing us of anything, you should post arguments. "It's not really important" is no more an argument than "it's industry reality".

But specific criticisms targeted at Fallout 3 as a sequel don't really occur.

What?

Almost all our criticisms are specific to Fallout 3 not being much of a sequel. That's why we compare it to the originals, y'know.

People skew their arguments about FO3 toward that

That doesn't make any sense. The only reason we are criticizing Fallout 3 is because it is claiming to be a Fallout sequel. We wouldn't care about the game otherwise. We're not disgruntled Oblivion fans, we're disgruntled Fallout fans.

The complaint that this isn't a "true sequel" is, all in all, a pretty small complaint, yet it's being blown up as if anyone who even touches this project or likes this project is a complete idiot who's likely the result of inbreeding and dropping out of high school.

No, the argument that some design decisions do not make sense as a sequel is relative in importance to how much you value the original games. I have no right to tell anyone they are obliged to care about it and you sure as hell have no right to tell anyone they should not.

And I wasn't claiming that NMA is childish (though I could), I was saying that's NMA's image to a lot of other people outside of this place, and it is.

Great. We don't care. Hell, we care so little that we rarely bother to mention some of the forums out there cross-site trolling us as they obsess over us. I think "childish" is very much in the eye of the beholder, there.

I will concede to you on half your statement: It was pointless making my original post. Sound logic and rationality never win arguments when it's the minority. It does of course win out in the long run, though when it happens the irrational majority never admits to it.

I think you're here with the wrong attitude. You already wrote us off as irrational and obviously have no interest in anything other than describing your own superiority to us.

Brother None argued that I wouldn't win anyone over around here by the way I was wording my arguments, but I dare to argue that there's no winning most of you over regardless of the argument.

Ok, here's something people really need to start understanding: it's hard to convince us of these points not because we're closed off to arguments but because our basic viewpoints are different than yours.

Talk about religious zealousness. I'm fine with other people holding basically different viewpoints. You're writing off a group of people because their basic views are different. That's pretty far out there, man.

It's the reason 95% of the active members around here (if not more) share mostly the same perspective about FO3.

Uh, yeah duh we do. Tight communities tend to have singular viewpoints. That's not to say we're not a bit too insular, I agree there, but if you ask me where the most useful discussion occurs, here or on the trolling mudslinging fest that is the more "open" BGSF, I don't have to think long nor hard about it.

But at the same time, we hold open discussion about specific points and often disagree with each other. You speak of us being "extreme and unreasonable" for liking Fallout 3. I doubt you ever speak of those forums that hate NMA where people are written off as "NMA trolls" for disliking Fallout 3 as "extreme and unreasonable". Please explain the difference to me.

As I said, the s0rethumbs article isn't very good, but look at the comments writing him off simply because he has a different opinion, and explain to me how we're the bad guy.

 

[Bodybag]

BN, did you just throw that sorethumbs blog in to be funny?

No, I posted it because DaC did and I figured what the hell.[...]

As I said, the s0rethumbs article isn't very good, but look at the comments writing him off simply because he has a different opinion, and explain to me how we're the bad guy.

See, that's the problem - you zeroed in on the mean comments people made and ignored that his article was full of garbage. The IG people at least saw the game in action, right? (I'm genuinely asking here; I can't speak Dutch, and Babelfish is not reliable)

But yeah - Black Isle forced Interplay to sell the Fallout IP by going bankrupt? Is that how you remember things shaking out?

 

[Polynikes]

It is the usually talk about how we live all in the past and how the original games were ten years old.
Don't any of them have an original response that wasn't handed to them by Bethesda?

It's funny, because those same people would cry foul if a 14 year old game called Duke Nukem 3D had a sequel that was anything besides a FPS.

 

[Brother None]

See, that's the problem - you zeroed in on the mean comments people made and ignored that his article was full of garbage.

I zeroed in on what wherenow? I newsposted it without much comment - as I'm supposed to. I don't exactly filter material for quality, if I did I'd have to ignore half the Fallout 3 coverage, nor does me posting it imply me giving any kind of value judgement. I just haven't commented at all, but other comments show people didn't like this article. Just like they don't like many articles that pass our news revue. So?

But yeah - Black Isle forced Interplay to sell the Fallout IP by going bankrupt?

That is not actually what he said. What he said is also incorrect, BIS never went bankrupt.

 

[Ausir]

That is not actually what he said. What he said is also incorrect, BIS never went bankrupt.

While it never even could go bankrupt, since it was never a company, just a division of IPLY.

 

[Tyshalle]

1. you offended people with your post. You ever heard of communication theory? Message vs. information? If you won't accept that offended people here, you're an idiot.

I accept that my post offended people. I merely think it has more to do with over-sensitivity on your parts than it does with anything I said. Now, I'll admit, there were some things that I said in my initial post that made me think "Hm, some people might wind up focusing in on this particular statement and take offense," and I did leave those things in anyway. Does that mean it was my intention to offend? Not necessarily. But my experience has pretty much been (both here and on the rest of the internet) that irrational people will take offense merely at the expression of an opposing viewpoint, and will typically respond hostilely regardless of the way you word things. Maybe I could have gone out of my way to sterilize my post to avoid people accusing me of being an asshole, but I sincerely doubt that there's anything I could have done (short of whole-heartedly agreeing with all of you) to avoid being called an idiot.

And in situations like that, I really just see no reason to go out of my way to avoid saying things that might make people feel offended. The internet is just too sensitive. Besides, I find it pretty funny how my post is being taken as such a grave insult. I didn't come out and just say something inane like: "You are all idiots. This is stupid and you're all motherfuckers." Any perceived insults I may have dropped were pretty mild, and in a couple of the cases were less me insulting you directly and more me saying: "This is the way you're perceived in most areas outside of this website."

2. There were only milk cows and completly changed games? WRONG! Go watch Sid Meiers Pirates! Surely no Cash Cow... GTA3, NeverWinterNights2, even upcoming games like Fable 2...

It's weird, whenever anyone makes a statement that is generally true 95% of the time, somebody thinks it completely unravels the truth of their argument to be shown a few mild exceptions. Exceptions don't overrule the statement, as the statement is still something you can bet 100% of the time and still be right far more than you're wrong. It's like pot odds in poker, if you have a 95% chance of winning the hand, and your opponent is making you bet less than 95% of the pot then you should take the bet 100% of the time. Why? Because if you made that bet 100 times, sure, you'd be wrong and lose 5 of those times, but in the long run you'd make far more profit as you'd still win 95 of the times.

That's a long way of saying: "So what?" But still. Also, GTA3 did have Vice City and San Andrias, and I've heard many people say that those two games were in fact cash cows. I don't agree with that, but that's kind of the point. NWN2 I have to say fucked up a lot of shit. First of all, the last quarter of the single player campaign was a terrible letdown of massive proportions. It was clearly rushed to the point of worthlessness. Worse, because of the way they worked the multiplayer (in that you had to download shit before you could log onto almost any server) it did significant harm to the game. Removing pictures from character's profiles also did more harm than good, and the whole game shipped buggy as hell and wasn't optimized.

Maybe it wasn't a "cash cow" in the strictest sense, but it wasn't exactly a game oozing with integrity upon its release, either.

You know that companies sue each other asses because of 'titles' ? I mean a big 'german' company wanted to forbid the use of the german word for 'children' in titles of products for sweets...

You know that's a completely irrelevant point that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, right? In the two examples you gave, the first one is an example of companies trying to identify themselves to separate themselves from their competition. In the second example, we're talking about marketing ploys, trying to entice children to buy a product that will rot their teeth and make them sick if they have too much of it. I don't really agree with Germany about that, but at the same time if there were a new brand of cigarettes called: "Children Starters" I might be pretty pissed too. But if you see great similarities between cigarettes called "Children Starters" and Fallout 3's name then I think you're the one that needs a reality check.

And you know, people feel like Stock-holder here. Like most fans we think that some of the IP is belonging to the fans.

Which is stupid. I mean, sure, it's great that you're so fucking in love with the video game that you want to make sure justice is done to it and you feel protective over it. That's seriously fine with me. But you're not a Stock-holder here. The IP doesn't belong to you, even remotely. You have no rights, at all. I find it extremely hilarious that you wrote that line immediately after telling me that I didn't pass my reality check.

4. Okay, point out one better way to go about it? I'm really interested, because your argument isn't backed up by any fucking thing until now... By the way, even the fact that NMA is well known all over the places where people talk about Fallout 3 is a pro point for being here. Because you get media coverage...

No doubt. I'm not trying to contest the semi-popularity of this place. I'm just saying it has a bad (and well deserved) image. Media coverage that mostly assumes this place is full of religious fanatics doesn't earn you anything except a public display of occasional entertainment (like that SomethingAwful article from last year).

If you actually think the ENORMOUS negativity being spewed from here does anything at all to help your cause you're out of your mind.

As for an example of a better way to go about it, I suppose that depends on what you consider "better." For instance, if we were to assign a numerical value to actions you could take that would help your cause, sitting around on this website and other websites making extremely hateful speeches about how Bethesda is an IP rapist and how everyone over there is an idiot who doesn't know a damn thing about Fallout and basically making yourselves look like moaning children earns you about a negative 10. That means you're actually harming your cause by being so extreme in your views and so utterly biased and irrational publicly.

So by logic, if doing that earns you -10 points, then inaction that is, doing nothing would earn you 0 points, which might not be necessarily forward progress in the strictest sense, but it would be more helpful than what you're currently doing. All you're doing now is making it easier for Bethesda and everyone else who doesn't completely agree with you to not take you seriously. So yeah, doing nothing and actually shutting up completely would be better for your cause than continuing to spew bile as you have been.

5. You never came up with a new argument backing you old up, so you're also just using the same childish argument over and over (I'm right! You're not!).

Okay? Not sure what to say to this as it's lacking substance (or even poor examples).

6. Your wrong about your 'Name does not change gameplay'-argument, we are argumenting that when the gameplay changes it should have an impact on the title...

Yadda yadda soy milk, yadda yadda dandelions, yadda yadda

Here's the difference: Bethesda isn't being deceptive. They've come right out and shown you exactly what the game will be. They're not claiming FO3 is exactly like FO1 and 2. They're showing you that it's FPP and turn-based with pause or whatever. When you go and buy Fallout 3 (and let's face it, you will), you know exactly what you're getting. You're not going to be expecting Fallout 1 and be completely sideswiped by this completely different experience with FO3. So this argument isn't actually about substance. It's superficial.

Tyshalle, come on, man. This is the tired old "YOURE RABID FANBOYS Aiee! YOU'VE MADE UP YOUR MINDS ANYWAY Aiee!" argument. To someone who regularly reads the news comments, it's pretty obvious when someone says something like:

examples given

that they have not been reading what is actually said about F3. Do you expect to have a serious debate when you come spouting that crap? At least have the decency to occasionally be more original and occasionally target specific points of debate, like Bodybag does.

You want examples? Let's take a look at the most recent piece of news on the front page, the Visual Crack likes Fallout 3. The very first reply is sarcastic, trying to completely debunk the original article's expressed opinion by essentially calling him an idiot.

The second post agrees with him, and even goes as far as to ask "is this a joke?" Because people being excited by trailers, y'know, the whole point marketing teams create trailers in the first place, yeah, that's retarded. Who'd get excited by those?

The third person pokes fun at an error in the article in a sarcastic way, while at the same time pointing out that this person didn't play the originals, and therefore his opinion can be taken with a grain of salt.

The fifth post makes fun of the article writer's name.

The sixth post is extremely sarcastic, and goes on to call another person on the forums out, to basically insult him on top of the article writer, despite the fact that this other guy hasn't even shown up to the thread yet.

Let's look at the next news thread, which just happens to be this one:

The first reply basically calls this all "Bethesda fanboy drivel." Which is a little weird, because didn't you just accuse me of being a jerkoff for calling you all fanboys? Yet that same insult gets thrown around at the opposition like it's candy. They go on to say that nobody has an original response that wasn't handed to them by Bethesda, which is obviously bullshit but it's an obviously irrational line anyway.

The fourth reply calls the argument "the most retarded ever." It goes on to be extremely sarcastic, and insults Bethesda by saying "we knew Fallout 3 would have Bethesda's fingerprints all over it" as if that were an insult all by itself. It goes on to insult Oblivion (again). It then goes on to say that Fallout 3 will probably be an enjoyable game, just not a "true Fallout game."

The fifth reply calls the reviewers ass kissers, and is openly hostile. It then praises the s0rethumbs article, which is the trashiest game article I've read all month, calling it a "piece of reality," obviously because, despite how openly hostile and sarcastic and very, very biased the article is, it agrees with him, and therefore is flawless.



Do I need to go on? I read a lot of the comments around here too for most articles posted on the front page. They pretty much all run similarly to this.

This is a community that likes Fallout and wants a sequel that it considers proper. We don't protest in front of the Bethesda HQ,

No, but many of you used to (and possibly still do, but I don't know as I don't go there anymore), including BN, go to the Bethesda forums and argue endlessly with all the people around there calling them idiots for having opposing viewpoints.

And honestly, like it or not, this is probably the most popular Fallout fansite on the internet (given, there's only like, two to choose from, but still). There's a certain amount of responsibility that should be taken with that, but it's not handled responsibly at all. Which, hey, is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that as the most popular Fallout fansite on the web, you do (or, at least, did) have the ability to influence other people's opinions. But the extremist views around here turn off pretty much everyone who doesn't fit in completely to your perspectives.

Many of us actually take the time to respond to people who simply say "you're fanatical, get a life", and then a guy like you comes and tells us WE can't engage in rational debate. What the fuck?

Taking the time to respond to irrational people does not make one rational. Look at this situation. You no doubt consider me to be irrational, yet you can't possibly believe that every single one of you are completely rational about this, yet I'm taking time to respond to all of you. You can't consider me to be irrational and still hold that idea. Mind you, I do think I'm being very rational, but I think that's a silly point to make all the same.

I'll bet on this: the day one of your favourite games or movies or whatnot gets a sequel that is so far off it's not even funny, you are going to be complaining somewhere to somebody that it's not good as a sequel. Mark my words.

Uh, well, Fallout 3 is a great example. I LOVED Fallout 1 and 2. Loved as in, I still consider the original to be my favorite game of all time. I even really liked Tactics (never bothered with BoS though). I got so hard core about Fallout that several years ago I created an RPG based off the rules and the system, and recruited over 80 people into it to basically set up a sort of text-based miniature MMO out of it. I'm a pretty hard core Fallout fan, and Fallout is my favorite game of all time. But I'm seriously looking forward to Fallout 3 hard core. I've got some reservations, but I still think it's probably going to be a great game. The name doesn't bother me at all.

I don't care about your individual motives much because I have no reason to care about you, so all I see here is someone who came on to tell us we shouldn't care about something because hey industry reality. If you were interested in convincing us of anything, you should post arguments. "It's not really important" is no more an argument than "it's industry reality".

You're looking for something concrete and tangible whereas I can only offer sensibility. Not because I'm inept, but because that's the kind of argument we're in. The gripe over the name is extremely superficial. You're acting like a hard core Christian telling me that, as an athiest, I have to prove God doesn't exist, while you're not requiring yourself to offer anything of substance to prove that he does.

In situations like these, I can only use rationality. Concrete arguments just aren't particularly possible here, for this specific gripe. Because it really comes down to you all flipping out over something trivial, and me saying: "Who gives a fuck?" and you all replying "We do!" Well, okay!

Almost all our criticisms are specific to Fallout 3 not being much of a sequel. That's why we compare it to the originals, y'know.

Again, you're great at taking soundbites (or in this case, textbites) and and attacking them while ignoring the overall message, but you're being an idiot here. I was specifically saying that arguments against Fallout 3 as a sequel is an illusion. It's akin to the movie JFK, where Costner attacks Tommy Lee Jones not because he actually gives a shit about him, but because it's the only substantial way he can bring light to the Kennedy assassination itself.

Similarly, you're not actually pissed off about the title, what you're pissed off about is that Bethesda has taken over the franchise and now you'll never get a rehash of Fallout 1 and 2 like you really wanted, but because you know whining about that by itself would make you look like a sniveling child, you're targeting this "3" thing as it's the most substantial argument you have. And you cling to it like it's your last hope because that's all you really have. And, whether you choose to admit it or not, it's completely trivial to 95% of the wider world.

No, the argument that some design decisions do not make sense as a sequel is relative in importance to how much you value the original games. I have no right to tell anyone they are obliged to care about it and you sure as hell have no right to tell anyone they should not.

Sure, it's a matter of opinion. But you do show hostility toward Bethesda and their team, and you do try to make it seem like they don't know anything about Fallout and don't care much about Fallout. Sure, you have the right to be full of shit, I'm not disputing that. But you are full of shit (in my opinion), and that's what I'm saying. Just like you show disdain and contempt for people's opinions outside of this website, I'm showing you what I think are the error of your beliefs directly to you. I don't see what the big deal is, in either case.

I think you're here with the wrong attitude. You already wrote us off as irrational and obviously have no interest in anything other than describing your own superiority to us.

That's not actually true. In fact, I think you're the one here with the wrong attitude. You're the biggest troll on these forums, and they're your own fucking forums, which is about as masturbatory as self-indulgence comes. But whatever. I'm not actually here to say "I'm superior," I'm more just saying: "Man, these arguments are weak as hell. The cynicism is palpable around here."

And honestly, every time somebody shows some level of rationality I tend to point it out and lay off of that person, whether I agree with them or not. So I don't see what the big deal is.

Talk about religious zealousness. I'm fine with other people holding basically different viewpoints. You're writing off a group of people because their basic views are different. That's pretty far out there, man.

Not really. But in either case I'm having a hard time seeing how it's any different from you writing off anyone who's looking forward to Fallout 3 as being amongst the "lowest common denominator Bethesda is targeting."

And it's fine to write off a group of people because their basic views are different. Most athiests write off hard-core religious groups for that exact reason, and I don't see why they shouldn't.

But at the same time, we hold open discussion about specific points and often disagree with each other.

I know you do. My complaints begin and end around the Fallout 3 arguments. I'm not claiming you are all completely irrational 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. I just think that this viewpoint of entitlement to the franchise simply for being hard core fans of it for a decade is idiotic. I don't even mind that you guys hate it and think this is a turn for the worst for Fallout, yadda yadda. I agree and disagree with various points about the game. But I think that the title issue is completely retarded. Moreso, I don't even think it's a real issue, as I've said over and over again, I think it's more an issue you guys are targeting to give what substance you can to the feelings of entitlement you feel over the IP. Like Bad_Karma said, a lot of you seem to feel like some of the IP belongs to you, which is completely ridiculous, but I think is pretty accurate to how you all feel.

You speak of us being "extreme and unreasonable" for liking Fallout 3. I doubt you ever speak of those forums that hate NMA where people are written off as "NMA trolls" for disliking Fallout 3 as "extreme and unreasonable". Please explain the difference to me.

To be honest, I don't pay a whole lot of specific attention to NMA-hater forums. I pay just enough attention to know that the general vibe outside of this website is that most people don't like you very much, and honestly I can understand why, but I'm not actively involved with any of these communities to make specific arguments against them.

Honestly, the only reason I make arguments here at all is because I get all my FO3 news from here but the extreme bias shown to pretty much all the articles gets difficult to ignore after a while.


But anyway, it is exasperating arguing like this around here for too long, so I'll make my exit here. If anything of particular substance is said in response I might poke my head back in, but if it just winds up being the same old, same old, I think we can all agree that there's no real point in continuing on like that.

 

[Brother None]

You're looking for something concrete and tangible whereas I can only offer sensibility.

Or preference. I mean, in the end of the day "nevermind" tends to be the most sensible option of all, but some people simply prefer not to nevermind. I assume you can live with that.

In situations like these, I can only use rationality. Concrete arguments just aren't particularly possible here, for this specific gripe. Because it really comes down to you all flipping out over something trivial, and me saying: "Who gives a fuck?" and you all replying "We do!" Well, okay!

Uh...yeah okay. You don't care, but we do. So what's the problem, exactly?

Similarly, you're not actually pissed off about the title, what you're pissed off about is that Bethesda has taken over the franchise and now you'll never get a rehash of Fallout 1 and 2 like you really wanted, but because you know whining about that by itself would make you look like a sniveling child, you're targeting this "3" thing as it's the most substantial argument you have.

No we're not. We're targeting it being a sequel, sure, and the impact that has on the franchise. But that's exactly the same thing. This being called Fallout 3 means ipso facto that I won't get a Fallout 3 that holds true (trueer) to the original franchise.

So how then is it illusory to say the "3" is the problem.

Or, rather, to say the "Fallout" is the problem.

That's not to say that the exact wording is - by definition - a superficial argument, of course it is, but it's an argument that represents a lot of thoughts and emotions, including those you described. If you limit it to just the statement itself, then yeah it looks stupid, but you're also playing wordsgames.

But you do show hostility toward Bethesda and their team, and you do try to make it seem like they don't know anything about Fallout and don't care much about Fallout.

And Bethesda shows hostility towards our attitude, clearly stating they do not think it's realistic and have no interest in it. The language is different, the message is the same.

Also, I never said they don't know anything about Fallout and have recognized that their love for Fallout is there (for some), but limited mostly to the setting. Please don't tell me what I think.

Just like you show disdain and contempt for people's opinions outside of this website.

I do whatnow? I think you're confused about two things here:
a) a lot of people outside of this website agree with our points or some of them, including those who dislike us because of our abrasive collective personality
b) I have never shown contempt or disdain for someone because of his opinion. Please show me where I've done that. Hell, siddle-saddly over to the Virtual crack threat and note my attitude towards Mac's opinion before jumping all over me.

That's not actually true. In fact, I think you're the one here with the wrong attitude. You're the biggest troll on these forums, and they're your own fucking forums, which is about as masturbatory as self-indulgence comes.

Ok. Now I'm a forgiving person, but did you really think that from all the possible replies available to you, "no ur" really was the best one?

But in either case I'm having a hard time seeing how it's any different from you writing off anyone who's looking forward to Fallout 3 as being amongst the "lowest common denominator Bethesda is targeting."

And I do that...where exactly?

I just think that this viewpoint of entitlement to the franchise simply for being hard core fans of it for a decade is idiotic.

Sense of entitlement? We don't pretend to wish to dictate the development of Fallout 3 to our preferences (as if we have collective preferences). That would be a sense of entitlement. I don't see how "here's an analysis of what the Fallout franchise entails according to the words of its creators, it would make sense for a sequel to follow it" implies a sense of personal entitlement.

But I think that the title issue is completely retarded.

I feel you are pushing the title issue a bit. Who is this person obsessing purely over the title that you are arguing against, exactly?

Like Bad_Karma said, a lot of you seem to feel like some of the IP belongs to you, which is completely ridiculous, but I think is pretty accurate to how you all feel.

I'm sure some of us do. Fans do that a lot.

Doesn't matter. I sure don't. But people can feel however they like. It really doesn't matter as long as their arguments are still solid and do not depend solely on this sense of entitlement.

In that sense, "you all feel really entitled" is - once again - a non-argument. You seem to like those.

I pay just enough attention to know that the general vibe outside of this website is that most people don't like you very much, and honestly I can understand why.

As can I. I also know a lot of websites, especially non-English, that either do like us or agree with us - or don't even know us and have the same opinion. You are making it sound as if everyone outside of NMA disagrees with us. That is a patent inaccuracy, I could point to dozens of forums that show people agreeing with us, including even people on TTLG or SA who really hate us but can admit when we have a point here or there.

Honestly, the only reason I make arguments here at all is because I get all my FO3 news from here but the extreme bias shown to pretty much all the articles gets difficult to ignore after a while.

Oh yes. Our preview is praised, including by professionals, as the most complete, and one of the least biased, yet we still get shit. Do you mind if I don't take that feedback all that seriously?

But more to the point: you say you get your Fallout 3 news from here. Ok. Then why do you care how biased articles are? Articles aren't news.

Or do you mean newsposts? Per puts in some stabs sometimes and we did have a bit of fun with the latest round of previews, but our internal rule is no bias in newsposts. If you look at my latest string of posts, you'll notice I don't comment on the news I post at all.

Our intention is to make our frontpage as accessible as possible for all our users. I apologize if we failed you somehow.

 

[Forhekset]

Oh, the irony. Tyshalle drops by the forums to let us all know what big, fat losers we are for wasting our lives bickering on the internet...yet he does so by writing epic, novel-length, soul-sucking posts. You're wasting a lot more of your life than I am, bro.

Btw Brother None, I miss your sarcastic comments on the news posts.

 

[Brother None]

Btw Brother None, I miss your sarcastic comments on the news posts.

Yeah, well, our internal stats for opening page read:
main page: 85%
forum: 10%

So I don't care what you think

HAH.

 

[terebikun]

But if you see great similarities between cigarettes called "Children Starters" and Fallout 3's name then I think you're the one that needs a reality check.

Interestingly enough, one of the major complaints is that Fallout 3 won't enable children ending, much less Starting.

 

[fedaykin]

You're right, Tyshalle. It'd wind up being the same old. Why? Because you just reiterated the same old general points you've been repeating all along (and which many others have repeated before you): 1) that we shouldn't care about F3's status as a sequel, because you, a "rational" person, don't 2) that there are people who don't like NMA 3) that your (not -so-humble) self is an example of repressed rationality and sensibility that is trying to make us see the errors of our ways, while simultaneously contradicting this discription. To top it off, you've now resorted to personal insults. Way to go, Mr. Rational. I believe it's been explained to you enough why these points are invalid and irrelevant, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Interestingly enough, one of the major complaints is that Fallout 3 won't enable children ending, much less Starting.

If you meant this whole statement as a joke, it's a good one. If not, well...you can probably guess the word that starts with an 's'

 

[Puff]

Excuse me...

"I don't consider it a good article and don't really know the blog."

Thanks for that, I'm sorry it had an error meaningless to the main points about Black Isle going bankrupt...I enjoyed how that was the fall back for many people's disagreement with the article.

The two main points (if you missed them) - Poorly titled and different styles of gameplay impact the narrative

Is the title really poorly chosen? Of course, it is unrelated to Fallout 1 and 2. Even Fallout Tactics wasn't called 3 because of the focus on tactics over the original narrative devices.

Other game series have gone both ways on this issue, some change the perspective and keep the titles continuing. Sometimes its good like GTA and sometimes it sucks. I'm reminded of The Legend of Zelda and Zelda 2: the adventures of Link - the second is now the most undesirable game in the series with side-scrolling gameplay.

Can different styles of gameplay impact the narrative? In an all too common way. Different gameplay has disconnected the oldest titles of TMNT to modern ones like Contra. Making them feel fragmented an unrelated. If a company plans to change these styles, they better put some serious thought into it, if they are to maintain the original narrative milieu. From what I've read on Bethesda's official Fallout 3 website and from what I've seen. They put very little concern into maintaining the original narrative qualities and metaphorical significance of the title. It wasn't originally a "survival" story, but a dark parody. Bethesda was a little too uncreative or unconcerned to realize that.


"See, that's the problem - you zeroed in on the mean comments people made and ignored that his article was full of garbage."

Please, point out the garbage (other than the easily fixed mistake about BI's Bankruptcy). Do you need me to come over and read it to you like the 1500 other people that didn't read the whole thing before passing judgment? Please, point out my faulty logic...I wrote it for people to talk about...go ahead...

 

[Briosafreak]

I liked Puff's text. It had the mix of verbal pounding and almost quiet sadness I see many times on the fansites, but he thought things over a bit more. I think the title of the blogpost is distracting the critics of what's written, there's nothing really new there, except the fact that he's going to buy the game anyway.

The different title thoughts are in the range of many discussions about Fallout 3, even outside the Fallout fandom, and even from people quite hostile to the "sense of entitlement" that supposedly we have, like Kieron Gillen.

"Can different styles of gameplay impact the narrative?" is something that has been asked since 2004, Puff's view is entirely legitimate.

If you say that Bethsoft people are probably angry with such a title then yeah, it's their right of course. I hope they understand that Fallout fans also have a right to vent their frustration, and there are worse ways to do it than a well thought and heart felt article like the one Puff wrote.

 

[Bodybag]

See, that's the problem - you zeroed in on the mean comments people made and ignored that his article was full of garbage.

I zeroed in on what wherenow? I newsposted it without much comment - as I'm supposed to.

I guess this is what's throwing me for a wrinkle - normally you do insert commentary, especially when two factors seem present:

1). The preview or news blurb or whatever is overwhelmingly positive(ly biased).
2). Said article also contains glaring factual errors.

and then you call that shit out faster than the speed of light, and you're ready to take it right to the matresses if anyone challenges you on it. Since you normally stick to facts backed by linkable evidence I'd say this is to your credit. So when someone fufills those two conditions, only in a negatively-channelled capacity, and is let off the hook it feels a little jarring, especially if the intent of linking to (and quoting the majority of) the article appears to be an attempt at balanced reporting.

Like, for example, imagine someone who gushes about how awesome Oblivion with Guns (but still called Fallout 3™) will be also mentions this:

When Interplay was forced to sell the game because of Black Isle's bankruptcy

and somehow tries to tie that in to why the game will be even awesomer, having seen none of it firsthand. I'm thinking warp 7, minimum.

But yeah - Black Isle forced Interplay to sell the Fallout IP by going bankrupt?

That is not actually what he said.

Let me just requote him, again:

When Interplay was forced to sell the game because of Black Isle's bankruptcy

Are we on the same page yet?

What he said is also incorrect, BIS never went bankrupt.

So it's not just my imagination? Maybe you can tell me why I am the first person to point this out on a site that specializes in knowing these things?

EDIT: I just read puff's reply to me, and really, this was more about NMA than it was about you, so no offense. And yeah, I guess "garbage" is a little strong , but reading through your article that's honestly the first word that came to my mind. I'd honor your request to point out specifically what I didn't like, but I think it's too big for your comments space on the blog and doing it here might get me banned (I'm on thin ice for being a rabble rouser, you see). Suffice it to say that the bankruptcy thing is not the centerpiece, but it was specifically relevant to how this site normally covers these things.
At least IMO.

 

[Brother None]

normally you do insert commentary, especially when two factors seem present:

If you check all the posts I made the past month, you'll find at most 1 or 2 with any sort of comments attached to them, positive or negative.

I haven't commented at all on anything since the last preview wave. That's the current posting mode I'm in. I realise it might confuse people, but I don't just have a single newsposting mode I stick to. I'm currently posting without comments, and I'm not making an exception for this.

 

[Bad_Karma]

So i might again try to answer your whole last post, but i'm to lazy to do that again, i actually wrote one long answer, but then i timed out and the post was gone (you really shouldn't begin writing and then go and eat for 20 minutes or so ).

But i skip all the single answer, especial since i don't think it would lead to something and just try to expand on what Brother None said, and on your complain about people here being rude and so on...

People here react a bit aggressiv on people who come in and say that we shouldn't do something, because most of the people never read the reasonings for why we dislike Fallout 3.
So let me shortly introduce you to a short history of NMA's Fallout 3 discussion, since the first signs of Oblivion3 (the Countdown page), while not mentioning the times when specific infos got released:

People here wanted a sequel so the first questions were 'What is a sequel' and 'will it be a sequel' (the questions came up, when the first infos were released wich looked as if it wouldn't be a sequel, maybe just a bit sooner) -> Answer was something around the lines of 'ecolutional step up from the predecessors while keeping the core components and more' and 'The technic has changed' -> Discussion about if the technic (isometric, turn-based) was a core component -> some people said yes, some said no. This and the fact, that people said it was still Fallout 3 from story and atmosphere lead to a discussion about that. 'Is Fallout 3 still the same in this department, did Beth got it right?' -> Discussion about new supermutants, jokes, dialoges, music, artworks and so on -> Again people over tended to say "It changed also in this aspect" (read "They got it totally wrong"). Wich then meant "It's not a sequel - It's more of a spin-off" -> Why do they call it Fallout 3, if it's more of a spin-off? -> Maybe because of marketing reasons? -> But why paying money for an IP and then alienating a big part (namely people from NMA) with completly changing it, and targeting an audience that don't care for the IP, when you can do it yourself? -> Why couldn't they just call it "The new Disc - Fallout" (i think i once suggested this name), wich wouldn't really alienating the fans here, while also building up a bridge between their main IP, and the new one? -> Will it be a game i would like to buy or a good one? -> No/Yes (that's up to everyone personally).

And you see at every point people came up and said, people here shouldn't judge it, or they are judging it wrong. Calling people here lunatics, because they judged it 'bad as a sequel' and or 'bad as a game' or only 'not being a sequel', while the magazines started saying "it will be da game of da yeahr! man!!!", and you know what? The magazine-crowd got paid by Beth in different ways...
That's by the way the reason a lot of media coverage gets mean comments (also please read new european previews and compare them to the american ones, i would say that's quite an nteresting read).

It simply get's annoying to hear people coming here to complain without readin reasonings and so on, especially while i think that not that much of people from here go on in all other forums.

Sure people here dislike them calling it Fallout 3, because it would then make a true sequel that's called Fallout 3 impossible, but also because we don't really understand reasoning behind this... They could have just as easily done their own thing, or named it after one of the unwritten rules that says "The main serie and the spin-offs should be differentiable by their name".

By the way, i hope you see, there's a reason behind us disliking it being called Fallout 3, because that would be the name for a sequel, wich it isn't for us.
Will it be a good or bad game? I think no one of us, only judged it by the fact it's not Fallout 3, or that it's called Fallout 3.
You see when people judged the jokes, the graphic and so on, there was also nearly everytime a discussion on the level of overall taste.
We dislike the Fatman not because it's not a Fallout-weapon, but because it's somewhat dump. We dislike the nuclear explosions of cars, not only because it isn't Fallout, but it's stupid. We dislike orchestral music, not because it isn't Fallout, but because we dislike orchestral music for such games....
And that goes on and on, for nearly all. And it all got said more then once over and over, and got discussed over and over.
And yes, in every discussion there's also some heat, and ones one opionion allways matters...

So i hope i didn't annoy anyone with it.. but that's how it is, at least in my opinion.