Fallout 3, who is this for?

[The Dude]

Troika? The ones that had a hand in Vangers: One for the Road?

..
No. That's not them. Troika was the company created by the original creators of Fallout. They released Arcanum, Temple of Elemental Evil and Vampire: Bloodlines.

I must have confused Troika with Buka Entertainment.

Everyone to his own opinion, informed or not. And anyway, we shouldn't close off to outside opinions since this community is allready somewhat isolated... I do recognize myself as being a whiner sometimes, outside opinions might give that 'back down to earth'-effect. I found the article a tad pessimistic and indeed biased (still nice to read though). It does illustrate some of the the thoughts in our community, but it's not really constructive. If we kick it too much, Bethesda will definitely not lend an ear (if they ever would).

Yeah, because they sure have listened over the past three *years*.
Oh snap, they completely haven't listened.

And this kinda shit definitely has to stop. This whole holier than thou crap. It's too fucking Orwellian to say that some have a right to say something and others not. Who's gonna say you're an expert and who not? Fuck that. Anyone can decide for himself if a comment is well informed or not. This is just scaring off people and only leads to more isolation and polarisation of ideas.

Wait, so now we can't comment on stupid ideas or uninformed opinions either?
Hah! This isn't happy-happy-fun-land where everyone can say whatever they want and never get reminded that they're full of shit.

Kinda easy to say that someone with a different opinion is uninformed hae.. What's the next step? Everybody who knows more is a wiseass and everybody who knows less is uninformed?

 

[Sander]

Kinda easy to say that someone with a different opinion is uninformed hae.. What's the next step? Everybody who knows more is a wiseass and everybody who knows less is uninformed?

It's very, very simple: you have informed opinions, and uninformed opinions. Uninformed opinions (eg. people saying that Fallout isn't based on the P&P principle, which is provably false) get told they're full of shit. Informed opinions can still be valid. But statements aren't valid or get accepted just because someone, somewhere said it was an 'opinion'.

 

[The Dude]

Kinda easy to say that someone with a different opinion is uninformed hae.. What's the next step? Everybody who knows more is a wiseass and everybody who knows less is uninformed?

It's very, very simple: you have informed opinions, and uninformed opinions. Uninformed opinions (eg. people saying that Fallout isn't based on the P&P principle, which is provably false) get told they're full of shit. Informed opinions can still be valid. But statements aren't valid or get accepted just because someone, somewhere said it was an 'opinion'.

So we lost all shades of gray? And there is suddenly someone deciding an argument or statement is informed or not?

 

[Brother None]

So we lost all shades of gray? And there is suddenly someone deciding an argument or statement is informed or not?

The thing is, when someone's argument is informed, they can usually back it up. If someone makes mistakes, he is uninformed, and people on the forum try to correct him. To be honest, it's a good idea no any forum and especially one like this to just read up some threads and watch the way the forum goes for a few days before posting. People who don't tend to get bitten. No need to act as if that's some sort of internet crimez.

 

[Roachypops]

I love games. There's a period on the end of that sentence because that's as far as the sentence goes. PnP RPGs, card games, board games, video games of all shapes, colors and settings. I love Fallout more than most games and it's the only game I've played on my PC for the last ten years. I run the PnP version for my friends.

I even (and here's where I'll probably lose most of you) liked the BoS game on the consoles. Was it exactly like Fallout? No, it was a post-apocalyptic Gauntlet with firearms and fleeting references to the series that bore its namesake. On the merits of the type of game it is and not the association with the Fallout franchise, it certainly wasn't the pestilence most people have made it out to be.

As I read this article and the remainder of the thread that followed, the one thing that became abundantly clear is that the issue people have is not with the game itself but that it's being called "Fallout".

So, if Bethesda had bought the rights to Fallout (thus indemnifying them from copyright infringement), made this game but called it something else, would we be having this discussion? And, if not, isn't that a little petty?

This site, which is an excellent resource and community, exists to celebrate Fallout. That's the reason I come here. As a result of the massive dedication from this segment of the series' audience, it tends to be extremely biased. Which is fine too. I guess I just don't understand the shock or outcry that this entry is receiving. Every deviation from the basic formula of Fallouts 1 & 2 has been lambasted over the years for one reason or another (which can be boiled down to "it isn't Fallout").

I'm not pro-Bethesda by any means. They make games. I like games. They occasionally make games I like. I'm interested in the story that they're creating and I'm sure I'll pick up a copy when it hits. Fine. It isn't Fallout. I think we're all going to survive this. Perhaps someone should create a Firefox plug-in that will change all instances of the text-string "Fallout 3" to "The Post-Apocalyptic Game Bethesda Made". Perhaps then everyone could sleep a little better at night.

 

[Sander]

So, if Bethesda had bought the rights to Fallout (thus indemnifying them from copyright infringement), made this game but called it something else, would we be having this discussion?

Nope.

And, if not, isn't that a little petty?

No, it isn't. When we get a Fallout game, we want and expect a *Fallout* game. If Bethesda refuses to deliver that, they could just as well have made 'Bethesda's PA adventure'. The whole point is that *they didn't do this*.
In effect, they are changing the entire franchise, effectively killing off the actual possibility of a game we do like.

 

[Roachypops]

So, do you think conversations such as this might change the production path that the game is on? Or would this time be better spent modding Fallout 2 into the sequel you'd actually like to see?

 

[Brother None]

So, do you think conversations such as this might change the production path that the game is on? Or would this time be better spent modding Fallout 2 into the sequel you'd actually like to see?

How are those two exclusives? We have people that work on mods, we have people that do this. Forum posters aren't good modders by definition, nor vice versa. So huh?

 

[Briosafreak]

So, do you think conversations such as this might change the production path that the game is on? Or would this time be better spent modding Fallout 2 into the sequel you'd actually like to see?

How are those two exclusives? We have people that work on mods, we have people that do this. Forum posters aren't good modders by definition, nor vice versa. So huh?

Yeah, that's one of the silliest arguments ever used on this place, he/she should get a prize...

 

[Roachypops]

Now, now. Hear me out on this one.

I wasn't being accusatory about this. They are not exclusives. Feel free to bitch about Fallout 3 all you want to, it's your privilege. I was merely positing that, what appears to me to be, verbal masturbation (feels good at the time, very little to show for it) could be channeled into another exercise that bears fruit of some kind.

And I don't agree with the attitude that "forum posters aren't good modders by definition". That's utter crap. Vice Versa, for that matter, is also crap.

I don't have any particular programming skills, but after reading the material provided on this site, I'm sure I could manage to use the tools available to mod Fallout 2. But let's assume for the moment that I have no clue how it works nor do I have any desire to learn. You know, like a good red-blooded American teenager playing Halo online. I can still make a contribution to a Fallout mod. I can create interesting NPCs, story arcs and subquests, dialogue, sprite art, whatever.

Every single person on this forum has some skill that they could apply. It would just be a matter of figuring out what everyone is good at and coordinating the effort to produce it.

I'd still like to know if you guys think this will help steer Bethesda away from the game you are showing such displeasure for, though.

 

[Per]

Every single person on this forum has some skill that they could apply. It would just be a matter of figuring out what everyone is good at and coordinating the effort to produce it.

It would "just" be that, huh?

I'll put this simply: either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're trolling.

 

[Roachypops]

I'm not trolling, I assure you. This is something that I've been honestly wondering about.

Of course it's not "just" that easy. Yes, it's more complicated than the simple statement above. That doesn't mean the people here aren't capable of pulling it off and to say otherwise should be considered degrading.

You have a huge community at your disposal, and everyone is good at something. I'm convinced that this is possible. Not easy and, judging by the success of countless other projects of this nature, not even likely. But to not try seems like a waste of potential.

 

[Per]

Well, first of all you should realize that saying "for shame, you should all be working on some project X that I feel is appropriate instead of posting things I consider useless" is quite presumptuous and overbearing. Yes, and we'll all be dead in a hundred years. The time and "energy" spent firing off a post doesn't convert into game development.

Secondly, "we" don't have anything at all "at our disposal". NMA is not a team, nor a tribe, nor a feudal hierarchy. We have a staff and then there are lots of unconnected people posting more or less randomly on the forum. Some of them happen to be modders. We can't make them do anything more than you can. Oh, and people have tried. And failed. Repeatedly. Because all their ideas amounted to in the end was "a lot of other people working on something".

Thirdly, the "with enough ants you can get to the moon" argument doesn't work. It flies in the face of reality and common sense, and if you can't begin to see why I don't think I can be bothered to try to explain.

 

[Roachypops]

Well, first of all you should realize that saying "for shame, you should all be working on some project X that I feel is appropriate instead of posting things I consider useless" is quite presumptuous and overbearing.

Not quite what I was trying to convey, but I can certainly see how it would be interpreted as such. I'd like to convey a sincere apology to anyone who might have been offended. Sorry.

I don't think you should all be working on a Fallout mod. I think that there's the opportunity for a great mod that exists amongst the user base here who haven't before attempted to or considered that they could accomplish such a thing.

Nor do I consider what is being posted here to be useless, by the by. I don't know if it's useless, ultimately, and I still haven't received any indication from anyone on here as their opinion (informed or otherwise) whether or not it might have a real-world effect other than a whole lot of bitching and moaning into the interwebs. That has it's place as well. The more you look at the net, that has a hell of a lot of places.

Honestly, I'd like that to be the case, that Fallout 3 is improved because of this discourse (perhaps not this one specifically, but you get the idea). I think that Bethesda could probably gain some excellent ideas from NMA and the developers should be reading it. I don't know if they are or if they care.

Secondly, "we" don't have anything at all "at our disposal". NMA is not a team, nor a tribe, nor a feudal hierarchy. We have a staff and then there are lots of unconnected people posting more or less randomly on the forum. Some of them happen to be modders. We can't make them do anything more than you can. Oh, and people have tried. And failed. Repeatedly. Because all their ideas amounted to in the end was "a lot of other people working on something".

You have a community, no matter how loose it is. I'm in no way suggesting that the staff of this site bears any responsibility towards making people produce this stuff. It would just be nice to see some people come together and work as a group to produce something truly epic.

Thirdly, the "with enough ants you can get to the moon" argument doesn't work. It flies in the face of reality and common sense, and if you can't begin to see why I don't think I can be bothered to try to explain.

I believe I understand your point here, but view it as cynical as you no doubt consider mine idealistic. There's a happy medium in there somewhere, I'm sure.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

So you are suggesting we give money for a game called Fallout, that isn't really Fallout, and then invest our time and energy to turn it into a Fallout game?

Because that's idiotic. If I buy a Fallout game I expect it to be a Fallout game not a generic programming language.

 

[Roachypops]

So you are suggesting we give money for a game called Fallout, that isn't really Fallout, and then invest our time and energy to turn it into a Fallout game?

Because that's idiotic. If I buy a Fallout game I expect it to be a Fallout game not a generic programming language.

No, that's not even close to what I said. I suggested that you could use the tools available to you to modify Fallout 2 to make a game you wanted to play.

I'm sure I'll buy Fallout 3 at some point. I'm in no way going to suggest that you do the same until I've had a chance to play it, because I'm not going to give you an opinion on something I don't actually have first-hand knowledge of.

That probably comes off as snarky, so please read it again (provided you haven't already hit reply) with the level, practically monotone voice with which it was intended.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Again, if Bethesda bought the Fallout license I expect them to make a true sequel and will do anything I can to make them stay true to Fallout.


What you are saying amounts basically to "If you didn't like the new Tom Clancy novel why don't you take Clear and Present Danger and rewrite it to suit you", which is, again, idiotic.

 

[Roachypops]

Again, you're missing my point. First off, your first mistake is to have an expectation at all, which is simply begging to be disappointed. And you're boiling what I said down into something that I did not say so that you can try to insult me.

To use your Tom Clancy analogy, if you don't like the novel, write a better one. Now, the ability to write a novel and having all the resources and ability necessary to create a game are vastly different things. So using the Fallout 2 mod tools may perhaps be the best option for such a thing to be accomplished. Maybe it wouldn't be.

I suppose it doesn't matter, though. I have no expectation that opinions on the internet are actually flexible, especially amidst a group that is, for lack of a better term, fanatic. Which is just sad, really. I'm keeping an open-mind on this because I simply refuse to condemn something based on a dozen or so screenshots and the content of the games media. Is it wrong to want to wait to make a judgement based on the finished product? Am I completely insane to think that people can influence the direction of a game by creating their own, superior content? Well, it worked for Counterstrike and for Battlefield. Fallout may be too far gone by this point but I still can't see why it isn't worth the attempt.

 

[Per]

To use your Tom Clancy analogy, if you don't like the novel, write a better one. Now, the ability to write a novel and having all the resources and ability necessary to create a game are vastly different things.

I would say a good analogy for making a game using an entire community instead of a game studio would be having ten people write a Tom Clancy novel together. And that's just part of why it doesn't work.

Is it wrong to want to wait to make a judgement based on the finished product?

Don't even start on that straw man, it's been a long time since we found it amusing.

 

[whirlingdervish]

it's morally unnacceptable at this point to go about assuming that Bethesda, unlike many better devs before them, are capable of producing a semi-relevant sequel in this franchise.

At this point it boils down to an all or nothing battle, the results of which can be one of two things:

1: FALLOUT 3 can be a good game that actually caters to FALLOUT fans and has something to do with FALLOUT beyond ripped-off images of the pipboy.

2: FALLOUT 3 can suck and not be relevant to the franchise and not be what fans want and not have shit to do with FALLOUT.

(these criteria are mutually exclusive. if it doesn't have shit to do with Fallout, then it will never be a good Fallout game.)

of these options, only one of them will lead to the franchise surviving Bethesda and being capable of producing one more innovative and amazing CRPG that the fans have been trying to get at for 10 years now.

That might sound a bit extreme, but that's how it's gonna go down, and I would much rather have the opportunity to have FALLOUT 4 be the game we want, instead of watching the franchise go the way of Xcom.

we can't stop Bethesda from making their ridiculous Oblivion spinoff with guns, but we can make sure that everyone knows that it is not indicative of the high quality of the Fallout RPGs and that it should not be used as inspiration in any future Fallout title.

If we shoot it down like FOBOS, maybe they'll get the hint.