Fallout: New Vegas developers quotes round-up

Well, i dont know if its really the majority, who does, but if you skim the comments here in NV discussion of all the factions CL faces the most critcism. In varying degrees of course and different things but mostly it boils down to: they are too evil and they are too roman and there are too few quests and infos for them.

I think the question was justified.
 
The legion really needs a DLC to "fix" this. Really, this is where a DLC could be useful...

I've hoped they will do more such DLCs anyway. Stuff that fills up the gameworld more and not crazy-whatever like a casino full of laser shooting hologramms.
 
Faceless_Stranger said:
Just as Fallout 4 will feature enough stupid to last us a lifetime.
Click to expand...



But... but i am still chewing on stupid leftovers from FO3!! There is enough for like... 20 years!
 
Sorry, but gauging online forums' responses as even a remotely accurate representation of what the populace at large feels about CL is ridiculous. That's what strikes me as "unprofessional."

There are those like myself that thought they were okay. And for people like me, I don't care to make posts on blogs or boards saying "OMG I totally think Caesar's Legion is okay!!1" Could've been more developed, wasn't amazing by any stretch (they could've further developed the rationale that CL brings order/competence at the expense of morality). But I thought some moments were nifty.

Think people have rose-tinged glasses about "grays" and earlier Fallouts. I mean c'mon, Enclave is pretty much evil in Fallout 2. You don't get a very compelling picture from the game that they're helping kittens on the side when they're not mowing down vault dwellers or scheming devious machinations. It's pretty one-sided back then, so it's a double standard to expect something different this time around.

Granted, as an enemy to hate I would've preferred the Enclave, but that's more because of their high-tech stuff I can admire (vertibirds)/loot (power armor).
 
I don't remember Fallout 2 developers talking about the Enclave as a morally gray faction before release. In fact, you couldn't even join the Enclave, so your point is somewhat moot. And again with that accusation on unprofessionalism? I'm not a game journalist. That's not an interview. There's no need for me to be professional. By the way, I'm not sure on what else I should gauge CL's reception. Reviews? Well, then, from the little I remember, review pretty much complained about Caesar's Legion too. Of course there are people who are fine with Caesar's Legion, that doesn't mean that's a well-received addition to the lore. At the very least it has been very divisive.

EDIT: FYI "Veni, Vidi, Vici" is, according to the Steam achievement tracker, by far the ending that less people got. In fact, even the second-to-last ending "All or Nothing" (Mr. House) has been got by more than double the players. I think this... maybe hints at something. But considering the high number of pirates and console players I guess I shouldn't take this as a sign either, should I?
 
yukatan said:
Sorry, but gauging online forums' responses as even a remotely accurate representation of what the populace at large feels about CL is ridiculous. That's what strikes me as "unprofessional."
Click to expand...

Yeah, and using polls to gauge what the "populace at large" wants is ridiculous too. And listening or reading about public opinion is ridiculous too. If a group of people reaches a certain size its not possible to gauge their feelings. So how come that FO3 is widely regarded as a good game if only 4 million out of 6 or 7 billion have bought it? I agree that, if you get right down to it, all those phrases like: the majority wants, the voter needs, most people think that... ar so much hot air because at best its based on a representative poll at worst its pulled out of a handy ass.

But there are things like more or less informed opinions. Looking over the nets most dedicated FO-site and reading what fans talk about can give at least an indication if the problem one person has is shared by others.

Worstusernameever hast told us that he scanned several forums including this one. he is not, as far as i know, a professional journalist and the question was put to sawyer in a personal way. WUNE never asked as a representative of all the gamers of the world but as a private person with an informed opinion.

This whole debate about if its really the majority or not (and this is not the first one) is ridiculous. First: the majority is not automatically right (see FO3), second: the majority can not be determined in any useful way if there are more than, say, 10000 people. So no one, not Worstusername, not you, not i and not bethesda could claim to truly represent the majority. third: the majority are a lot of people and there is a lot of different opinions, not just "yeah its cool" and "no it sucks!" 4th: its a turn of phrase. An inaccurate one, granted, but otherwise questions would go something like this:

i think, and a lot of other people too, but i cant give you exact numbers, i base this on (insert information source) that cl was criticized because of (insert every reason). While i don't know what proportion of the total gamers me and those people represent and i was not able to interview 4 million chaps in any depht i nevertheless would like an answer to my question, i.e. my problem with cl. If you think that there are not enough people sharing my opinion please tell me what the magic threshold is at which i would be allowed to ask that very question. I will then get out and try to acquire written statements from legally mature persons and ask again as soon as i have them.

The interesting thing was the question and the answer. Babbling about if WUNE used the right words and how many people share his opinion is a strawman argument to invalidate his opinion that there is something wrong with CL. If you think CL is cool as it is then thats ok, sawyer gave an answer that should satisfy you in your perception of CL. For me the answer was good too, i don't agree with him but i saw where hes coming from and what his thoughts were to use cl the way its used. Its a far better answer than the bethestadian "we thought it was hilarious and fun. We know it makes no sense but we went with it anyway".

concerning grey areas:
NV was advertised as having no really evil main antagonist but that every main faction had its pros and cons. That was not the case in FO1 and 2.

In FO2 you cant join with the enclave because their goal is to kill all mutated humans, including you. So it would be stupid. The master approached the same goal from the other side, turning everyone into mutants so everyone would be equal and stop slaughtering each other. Those factions cared for their people and wanted to make a better future by committing terrible deeds first. As a player you had no place in those futures and therefore had to fight them (well, you could be turned into a supermutant, and who knows how that would have turned out). You could not side with the master because you knew that the mutants are infertile, so again a suicide-option.

In NV its not that dramatic, you have two (three) factions that will rule the wastes in different ways. but not one of them is bent on killing everything that walks around or turning them into mutants. Its more like the choice an immigrant faces: should i go to a modern and liberal society like todays... germany, england or sweden or you name it, or should i go to a roman empire where i could be nailed to a cross or turned into a slave? The choice is pretty obvious and there lies the problem. CL has nothing to offer compared to NCR or House. It would have been better if you can choose between NCR as do gooders that can not protect their citizens (raiderattacks) and CL as secure but brutal government.


Anyway, keep it up Worstusernameever

and sorry for wall of text, ignore if you got better things to do :)
 
Arden said:
This whole debate about if its really the majority or not (and this is not the first one) is ridiculous. <snip> second: the majority can not be determined in any useful way if there are more than, say, 10000 people. So no one, not Worstusername, not you, not i and not bethesda could claim to truly represent the majority
Click to expand...

And consequently, any statement about how the majority of gamers feel a certain way about CL is also ridiculous. I never laid claim to representing the majority. My point was it's kinda futile to talk about majority when online communities don't represent the majority.

It's one thing to ask a question, it's another to presume that that question speaks for the majority of gamers which is what the question did. Now it's true WUNE isn't a games journalist and doesn't need to be "professional," but regardless I didn't think it was a fair question.

NV was advertised as having no really evil main antagonist but that every main faction had its pros and cons. That was not the case in FO1 and 2.
Click to expand...

True about how NV advertising that, but the fact of the matter is people are slamming CL for its supposed shallowness and lack of depth... and my point is that the Enclave (the main bad guy so to speak) was never a really deep or lore-rich faction anyways, so I still think it's a double standard. Overall I think FO2 was a much deeper game, but it's not because of the implementation of CL per say, at least from my point of view.

WUNE: True that not many finish the Caesar's Legion ending. But that only indicates whether people like siding with CL, not whether people like CL as a faction. Maybe people like the CL faction--and like killing them? I blew away Caesar the first chance I had--just because I did the "good" ending doesn't mean I didn't like the CL as a faction.

I thought the CL were anticlimactic only because I cleared out the camp when I first met Caesar, so the final battle seemed very lackluster by comparison.
 
I could have worded it differently, true, but if the question really was that unfair or put Sawyer's work in a bad light he could also have decided to not answer. It's not like I had any power to make him answer there. And at the very least, the fact that Caesar's Legion is the least played faction implies that the developers have failed at providing a compelling motivation to join them. Also, since I can't physically interview everyone who has the game, I kinda put the data I had together and the picture that comes out is of Caesar's Legion as an unsuccessful faction.

I don't know why you keep coming up with the "but people liked them!" argument, too. Of course, people liked them. Just as there are people here who like Fallout 3. Would you say that No Mutants Allowed, as a whole, has a favorable opinion of Fallout 3? Hope the comparison works.
 
yukatan said:
And consequently, any statement about how the majority of gamers feel a certain way about CL is also ridiculous. I never laid claim to representing the majority. My point was it's kinda futile to talk about majority when online communities don't represent the majority.

It's one thing to ask a question, it's another to presume that that question speaks for the majority of gamers which is what the question did. Now it's true WUNE isn't a games journalist and doesn't need to be "professional," but regardless I didn't think it was a fair question.
Click to expand...

You're belaboring the point. Sure we can throw up our arms and go "there's no way of telling!" Yet what we actually see is negative responses on various communities. What we see is Steam stats showing people opting for the Caesar route are in the vast minority, which might be either due to paucity of quests or due to unattractiveness of the faction but it is significant. You're trying to dodge out of it by saying "but this isn't definitive proof!" You're right, it's not, but that doesn't matter. We have no definitive proof because it does not exist. We have indicators, and they're significant, and that makes it a fair question. J.E. Sawyer just outright denies it, but he offers no counter-evidence, and nor do you, and exactly for that reason it's a fair question. If it were an outright false claim, it would be unfair, but it clearly is not.

yukatan said:
and my point is that the Enclave (the main bad guy so to speak) was never a really deep or lore-rich faction anyways, so I still think it's a double standard
Click to expand...

What? He just explained why there's a different standard for the Enclave than for Caesar's Legion. There's nothing double about it, it's different because they are represented differently. Besides, it's not like the Enclave is adored.
 
Lexx said:
The legion really needs a DLC to "fix" this. Really, this is where a DLC could be useful...

I've hoped they will do more such DLCs anyway. Stuff that fills up the gameworld more and not crazy-whatever like a casino full of laser shooting hologramms.
Click to expand...

Fixing the legion would be rather easy. Just base a
DLC in Legion territory and show long term effects that the Legion rule

I'm someone that really likes them as a faction. They're presentation in the game is rather lacking since it doesn't show you why you should support except with major downsides. Of course its still somewhat thought through since the only contacts you have is cesar himself and a group of savage ex-tribals.
 
^ Nah, would still be a hackjob.

Ideally, the Legion needs an alternative storyline where they recruit the Courier at Nipton, train him and then send out on missions - instead of the whole going to McCarran and Vegas stuff. During my Legion playthrough, I found that there's a regrettable lack of Legion in mid-game; you basically don't see them between Nipton and until after you've started looking for the chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top