Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[Vault 69er]

If there is anyone on the planet who actually would enjoy a Fallout Football game, who am I to tell them that they're not allowed to? It's absolute lunacy from where I stand of course, and I wouldn't call it a worthy addition to the Fallout line, but that's what I'm driving at, I don't imagine anyone who actually did want a Fallout Football game would actually care at all what I thought.

Why would the opinion of somebody who wants a Fallout football game matter at all? They're obviously not fans of Fallout. Let them play their football games, but don't freaking call it Fallout!

 

[concernedcitizen]

If there is anyone on the planet who actually would enjoy a Fallout Football game, who am I to tell them that they're not allowed to? It's absolute lunacy from where I stand of course, and I wouldn't call it a worthy addition to the Fallout line, but that's what I'm driving at, I don't imagine anyone who actually did want a Fallout Football game would actually care at all what I thought.

Why would the opinion of somebody who wants a Fallout football game matter at all? They're obviously not fans of Fallout. Let them play their football games, but don't freaking call it Fallout!

This is what I'm saying. If there were people around who wanted one, good for them, I hope enjoy it, but it's definitely not for me, and I will take no part in it. At the same time I'm certainly not about to declare war on them and attempt to prove to them that they don't actually want a Fallout Football game.

To remove the example which was provided from the realm of "utterly ridiculous", and shift back towards what we're currently discussing. Why, when the game we're discussing is actually some sort of action/adventure/shooter/who know's what, is the same approach unreasonable; rather than fighting with people over what it is that they want, wouldn't it be easier, less dramatic, and ultimately more sensible to just decide that it's not remotely worthwhile in whoever's opinion, and maybe be a bit vocal about that, without actually trying to tell people that their preferences are wrong?

Edit: rewording to avoid use of "your", I'm not attempting to single out anyone in particular here, so apologies if that's how it seems.

 

[Vault 69er]

If there is anyone on the planet who actually would enjoy a Fallout Football game, who am I to tell them that they're not allowed to? It's absolute lunacy from where I stand of course, and I wouldn't call it a worthy addition to the Fallout line, but that's what I'm driving at, I don't imagine anyone who actually did want a Fallout Football game would actually care at all what I thought.

Why would the opinion of somebody who wants a Fallout football game matter at all? They're obviously not fans of Fallout. Let them play their football games, but don't freaking call it Fallout!

This is what I'm saying. If there were people around who wanted one, good for them, I hope enjoy it, but it's definitely not for me, and I will take no part in it. At the same time I'm certainly not about to declare war on them and attempt to prove to them that they don't actually want a Fallout Football game.

To remove the example which was provided from the realm of "utterly ridiculous", and shift back towards what we're currently discussing. Why, when the game we're discussing is actually some sort of action/adventure/shooter/who know's what, is the same approach unreasonable; rather than fighting with people over what it is that they want, wouldn't it be easier, less dramatic, and ultimately more sensible to just decide that it's not remotely worthwhile in your opinion, and maybe be a bit vocal about that, without actually trying to tell people that their preferences are wrong?

Edit: rewording to avoid use of "your", I'm not attempting to single out anyone in particular here, so apologies if that's how it seems.

Because they called it Fallout 3. Implied direct successor of Fallout 1 and 2. They didn't even have the stones to call it Fallout: Bethesda's FPS Adventure or something. They want to make it part of the numbered series, part of the legacy, part of the canon.
Sorry, that's just wrong. There's no reason why it should be this way, other than some people's retarded idea that Fallout 1 + 2 are outdated and need to be updated to modern times by means of making it real time and first-person.

 

[concernedcitizen]

True enough, and definitely a valid complaint. I don't tend to refer to it as Fallout 3 because I'm not convinced on that front at all either. But what this boils down to is a gripe against a deliberate marketing move from Bethesda, and doesn't really relate to the arguing with people over what they want thing.

 

[Dunneh]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and i have to say that the only post that has hit the nail on the head regarding the 'controversy' of the preview is concernedcitizens. He seems to be the only sensible 'non fanboi' in this thread who can see the wider picture of what Boothesda are doing, or at least trying to do.

 

[Sander]

If there is anyone on the planet who actually would enjoy a Fallout Football game, who am I to tell them that they're not allowed to? It's absolute lunacy from where I stand of course, and I wouldn't call it a worthy addition to the Fallout line, but that's what I'm driving at, I don't imagine anyone who actually did want a Fallout Football game would actually care at all what I thought.

What I think is ridiculous here, is that anyone can somehow expect to define for others what they should enjoy in a game, or what they should want to experience again from the original Fallout games.

And again and again you show that you have not understood a single word that has been written here.

Let me reiterate this for the thousandth time: it's not about whether or not people will *enjoy* this game, it's about whether this game will be a worthy successor. Nowhere in this entire thread have I or has anyone else presumed to tell people what they could enjoy, and the fact that you think we have only shows that you have not understood anything and are only blabbering your own little line again and again.

For the final fucking time: a Fallout FPS game will not be a worthy successor. Not because it wouldn't be enjoyable, but because it would simply be a different kind of game.

This approach extends to a lot of things in life. Every day I see people with different preferences, who read books and get different messages, who interpret songs differently, who wear different clothes and enjoy different sports. Out of basic courtesy (and an awareness of the futility in attempting it), I do not try to convince these people that they should think and act as I do. I don't know how many different ways I can say it, and I am at a loss as to how this can be lost on you. Your individual perspective, or even the collection of perspectives shared by regulars here in combination with the game's designers, on the important parts of Fallout are not a factor in determining mine, and as such, you can't beat my perspective down by pushing yours.

What you would demand from a new Fallout game does not overrule what anyone else wants from it, myself included. If they're satisfied with a game where you can throw rocks at children and that's all it takes for them to call it Fallout, then good for them. In the same way, if you want something which does not deviate from the original gameplay mechanics, that's great too, and good luck with that one. Similarly, if all I'm really keen on is a game which drawns upon some of the setting and character established in the first two games, be it removed from the original gameplay or not, then that's my call. I don't expect everyone to agree, and I can definitely understand that in their eyes, what I'm hoping for won't be "worthy". I can live with that, as I am able to understand that the people's expectations vary, and wouldn't dream of attempting to tell someone exactly what it is they should want. It confuses me that this same degree of understanding is not extended in response to my views. Is the intent here seriously to somehow "disprove" what it is that I have decided I want in the game, or what it is that I like about Fallout games in the first place? What you're telling me over and over is that what I want from a Fallout game does not live up to what you want. I get it already, and it doesn't make a difference.

No, what people are telling you over and over is that what *you* want from a Fallout game *would not be a Fallout game at all*.

I've been following this thread from the beginning and i have to say that the only post that has hit the nail on the head regarding the 'controversy' of the preview is concernedcitizens.

Either provide some arguments, or don't comment at all.

 

[Dunneh]

For the final fucking time: a Fallout FPS game will not be a worthy successor. Not because it wouldn't be enjoyable, but because it would simply be a different kind of game.

I absolutely do not agee with this. This is purely subjective. What i want from a fallout sequel is obviously completely different to what you want and the title of 'worthy successor' cannot be defined by just you.

I think this is what concernedcitizen is also trying to say?

Am i rite?!!1one

oh and be gentil

 

[concernedcitizen]

Let me reiterate this for the thousandth time: it's not about whether or not people will *enjoy* this game, it's about whether this game will be a worthy successor. Nowhere in this entire thread have I or has anyone else presumed to tell people what they could enjoy, and the fact that you think we have only shows that you have not understood anything and are only blabbering your own little line again and again.

I think the reason for this confusion is that you continue to restate what you think is "worthy" in response to what I say that I would "enjoy". If you are not attempting to attack my statement of what I would enjoy, by swearing at me and telling me that I'm missing the point when I say it, what exactly is it that you are doing?

What I am saying is precisely about whether I will enjoy the game, I can tell you this very, very clearly. As I pressed the keys in the first post, and each post since, what I have been talking about is exactly that. If you choose to divert the point in my post, by responding and telling me what you think makes a "worthy" Fallout game, this is not a failing on my part, as all I have presumed to share is my opinion on what I'd enjoy.

If you want to make this a conversation about worthy Fallout titles, that's fine, but you should pick someone to target who is actually objecting to your objective definition, which is not what I'm doing. I'm simply saying that you can keep it, I have my own views I am not interested in adopting yours, but thankyou for sharing all the same.

For the final fucking time: a Fallout FPS game will not be a worthy successor. Not because it wouldn't be enjoyable, but because it would simply be a different kind of game.

I do not share your ability to declare my statements final, but nor would I want to. Instead I will respond to this gem in very simple form:

* I am not interested in debating what you think would be a "worthy" Fallout game. Nor am I interested particularly in laying down the law as to what a "worthy" Fallout game is. Similarly, my lack of interest in this topic is not affected when you point out that you are not sharing an opinion, but an "objective definition of Fallout" which was passed down from God himself.

* I am interested in saying what I liked about the original Fallout games, and what it is that I would like to see come back in the new one. I have made this intention exceptionally clear, and I don't feel that I have been hostile towards anyone in doing this. For this reason, I am still confused by the fact that you appear to be attacking my statement of what i would enjoy, over and over, and over, and over, by ranting about worthy Fallout titles. These two ideas, what I want from a Fallout game, and what you swear about as defining aspects of Fallout, they just have nothing to do with each other.

* I understand, and have not missed the point which you have painstakingly made with all the subtlety of a snow shovel, that you do not see a "Fallout FPS" as being worthy. It's just that I'm not that interested in discussing that, I'm not arguing with you about what "worthy" is, we've all got our differing opinions, and for the most part I think it'd be better if we cut down on the trying to ram them down each other's throats bit of proceedings.

No, what people are telling you over and over is that what *you* want from a Fallout game *would not be a Fallout game at all*.

In response to this, I would like to again respond by acknowledging the views of others. If what I want isn't a Fallout game in your eyes, or the eyes of others, great, you guys can skip calling it a "worthy" Fallout game. If it lives up to my expectations, I will call it a Fallout game, and that's a decision which I will happily make for myself. I don't understand why this continues to be such an issue.

Edit: Yes Dunneh, that's exactly what I'm saying, in just one or two sentences. I don't even understand how there is room to try to debate this. It seems painfully obvious to me, yet still, the attacks are coming? My enjoyment of a Fallout game doesn't hinge on what *anyone* else thinks is "worthy", it's really simple.

 

[Sander]

I absolutely do not agee with this. This is purely subjective. What i want from a fallout sequel is obviously completely different to what you want and the title of 'worthy successor' cannot be defined by just you.

I think this is what concernedcitizen is also trying to say?

Am i rite?!!1one

And yet again a newbie who fails to read even the slightest bit of information on this site. Such as Fallout's core design.

Also, what is it with 'you like something else' when I've stated again and again that it's not about likes and dislikes, but about Fallout's objective design? What the hell is it about the word 'objective' that people seem to be unable to understand?

In response to this, I would like to again respond by acknowledging the views of others. If what I want isn't a Fallout game in your eyes, or the eyes of others, great, you guys can skip calling it a "worthy" Fallout game. If it lives up to my expectations, I will call it a Fallout game, and that's a decision which I will happily make for myself. I don't understand why this continues to be such an issue.

Because it amounts to calling a football game ping-pong. It's ridiculous, and insulting.

 

[concernedcitizen]

Because it amounts to calling a football game ping-pong. It's ridiculous, and insulting.

Ridiculous, perhaps by your definition, yes, but I'm happy to live with my opinion being ridiculous in your eyes. I won't extend the same judgement to your opinion however, as that would be somewhat impolite.

Insulting? I don't really see the scope for that one at all. If you genuinely feel insulted by someone saying that they value different elements of the Fallout titles to you, well, I'm sorry, but I just can't help you with that one. You may need to attempt to think outside the square, see where other people are coming from, and agree to disagree, or you may need to continue to swear at everyone who disagrees until they submit to your ultimate perspective. If it's the latter though, I get the impression that we've got a lot more posts which achieve nothing at all on the way.

 

[Punter X]

to be honest i'm surprised that the whole sander vs concernedcitizen thing is still going on considering that, to me at least, the whole thing seems to be fairly simple by now and it can be reduced to:

sander wants/demands Fallout 3

concernedcitizen wants/demands an entertaining Fallout game ie "I'm not really expecting a "true" Fallout sequel"

i'm sure both sides will correct me if i'm wrong but that's how it appears to me

 

[concernedcitizen]

to be honest i'm surprised that the whole sander vs concernedcitizen thing is still going on considering that, to me at least, the whole thing seems to be fairly simple by now and it can be reduced to:

sander wants/demands Fallout 3

concernedcitizen wants/demands an entertaining Fallout game ie "I'm not really expecting a "true" Fallout sequel"

i'm sure both sides will correct me if i'm wrong but that's how it appears to me

As far as I can tell, that's what it boils down to, but it would seem now that my opinion is unacceptable as it is at once both insulting and ridiculous. This certainly helps me understand why this has been such a protracted issue, but does little in providing a way that it could be resolved, short of me agreeing, or simply not sharing my opinion in the first place (The first is unlikely, and the latter is obviously no longer an option).

 

[Punter X]

the way it seems to me is sander does not necessary find your opinion "insulting" and "ridiculous" in terms of the end product being merely a "Fallout game" but that they become so when applied to "Fallout 3" (a stance i would add seems to be fairly commonly repeated here ie the same sense of outrage would most likely not be as strong if it was just a "Fallout game")

edit: as for any sort of "resolution" as it were, that would also seem a relatively simple affair to me as all that needs to be acknowledged is that you're both talking about different things

 

[concernedcitizen]

the way it seems to me is sander does not necessary find your opinion "insulting" and "ridiculous" in terms of the end product being merely a "Fallout game" but that they become so when applied to "Fallout 3" (a stance i would add seems to be fairly commonly repeated here ie the same sense of outrage would most likely not be as strong if it was just a "Fallout game")

Perhaps true, but I've already pointed out that I don't particularly like the "Fallout 3" thing myself. I don't run Bethesda's marketing department though, and for that reason there's little I can do about it, so it seems odd that the rage over this complaint is directed toward me, as I'm not pretending that it will be a "real Fallout 3", regardless of what Bethesda want to call it.

Edit: and regarding the resolution, I've pointed out that we're not discussing the same thing many times thus far. In response, I am informed that I have apparently missed the point.

 

[Sander]

Ridiculous, perhaps by your definition, yes, but I'm happy to live with my opinion being ridiculous in your eyes. I won't extend the same judgement to your opinion however, as that would be somewhat impolite.

By claiming that any game that carries Fallout's setting would be a good Fallout game in your eyes, you are implicitly saying that Fallout's gameplay doesn't matter at all. You are throwing out any and all objective definitions or evaluations in favour of your own opinion. No, this is not acceptable to me or many people on this site because that is *exactly* what Bethesda is now doing and what we hate to see happen. Essentially, you are condoning Bethesda's actions and perversions of the license by simply claiming that 'hey, it's all about opinions anyway'.

Insulting? I don't really see the scope for that one at all. If you genuinely feel insulted by someone saying that they value different elements of the Fallout titles

For the umpteenth time *I am not talking about opinions or what people value in a Fallout title*. Why you continue to try to twist *my* arguments into that is beyond me.

Let me try this yet again: you like certain things in Fallout, and you dislike others. Fine, and I've never in this entire thread contested that or your right to feel that way. However, throughout this thread you have insisted on then saying that *I* should not be whining, and that my *opinions* are simply different from yours. Which is absolute fucking bullshit, *because I was never talking about opinions*.
Yet you *still* continue to try to boil down my arguments to simply opinions.

 

[Punter X]

the way it seems to me is sander does not necessary find your opinion "insulting" and "ridiculous" in terms of the end product being merely a "Fallout game" but that they become so when applied to "Fallout 3" (a stance i would add seems to be fairly commonly repeated here ie the same sense of outrage would most likely not be as strong if it was just a "Fallout game")

Perhaps true, but I've already pointed out that I don't particularly like the "Fallout 3" thing myself. I don't run Bethesda's marketing department though, and for that reason there's little I can do about it, so it seems odd that the rage over this complaint is directed toward me, as I'm not pretending that it will be a "real Fallout 3", regardless of what Bethesda want to call it.

Edit: and regarding the resolution, I've pointed out that we're not discussing the same thing many times thus far. In response, I am informed that I have apparently missed the point.

with all due respect i wasn't even sure as your position regarding "Fallout 3" and a "Fallout game" until relatively recently and as such felt compelled to ask directly

edit: @sander: in regard to the core design argument could i ask you to confirm or deny that you would be less pissed if the current project was "Fallout:FPS" rather than "Fallout 3" (note less pissed as it's not terribly evident that they're even holding true to the setting and "feel" imho but i'm mainly concerned here with gameplay)

edit2: request to sander seemed a bit leading so added "or deny"

 

[Hideous freak of Nature]

I'll leave it to BB to point out how certain someones have garbled his posts...

In the meantime, allow me to shed some light on the point so lucidly expounded by BB regarding intentional fallacy as appertaining to Fallout and the "discussion" at hand.

While it is debatable whether or not the epistemological approach of New Criticism is viable tin elucidating the fine defining points of computer games, it does make a strong argument in several areas, one of which I will elaborate more upon in my post here.

Let's take the issue of the original designers intent of making Fallout interactive gaming interface akin to the PnP experience of RPGs.

We know, as a fact, after making a scrutinizing and objective observation, that the Fallout gameplay interface is best described as a 3d person isometric view graphic engine combined with a turn based combat engine. Additionally, we identify the ubiqutous 'future of the 50's' sci-fi setting laden into the all-encompassing post-apocalyptic world of post-thermonuclear conflagration, with a typical post-apocalyptic hero plot. Then we can point out the extensive RPG elements incorporated into the game (unique S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system - although heavily influenced by the GURPS model), branching dialogs, responsive characters, plethora of tactical and gameplay options, well written and thought-out story, mature humor (both in dialogs and combat), tantalizing irony and that hard to word appeal so special to Fallout which is the result of a successful integration all the aforementioned features into a synergistic work of art.

Now take the designers into the picture with their commentary elucidating that such an approach was taken as would best recreate the tabletop PnP RPG experience. While that may or may not have been their true intent (many authors or artists like to distort and panache the view of their creative processes into making others believe how succesful and accomplished they really are not), is of little, and should be of little concern to the objective and critical observation we make of the game.

This can be further elaborated upon by going back to the isometric graphics engine and the turn-based combat engine. One other explanation, and a perfectly reasonable at that, why they implemented the interactive game play interface as they did was because of the hardware constraints they had to work with. For a game published in 1997., when the most powerfull PC was a Pentium 200 MMX (as far as my memory serves me right- but was certainly within the +-25% error margin) many things could not have been implemented even if they desired to do so ( non-isometric view with a movable camera in a 3D world, essentially necessitating graphics accelerator hardware (that was just making its debut), non turn-based, i.e. real-time or pseudo-real time (phase) combat system that would be as challenging as the one implemented (remember how long turns would take when a large number of combatants was involved and ponder on what order of additional computing power was necessary to make it perform seamlessly in real time.

Before you non-deservingly rebuke me, or god-forbid ostracize me, remember that I'm not saying that the designers ever wanted to make the game engine non-isometric and non-turn based, but am just elucidating the constraints and relative meagerness of implementation options when compared to contemporary game designs that are able to tap into the over 1000% more powerful computer hardware now commonly used. This just serves to point out that all designers', authors' or artists' remarks of their creative processes should be taken cum grano saltis.

Going back again, while being plausible, it is not immediatelly apparent that the game designers making Fallout had the intention of recreating the tabletop experience of PnP RPG games rather than just using it as an established base in want of some other, better or more original approaches. Such statements, made privately in conversations, in e-mail, or published in journals about the work, especially when expressing ideas not immediately evident from the work itself, should not be taken into account as the defining characteristics of a work under scrutiny, as such a work may have failed to live up to such intentions, or that may not have been the original intentions at all.

It is thus imperative to concern oneself with what a particular product is, rather than what the intent of those making it was. To paraphrase it:

According to New Criticism, a work does not belong to its author, but rather "it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The work belongs to the public." It is the Contextual evidence that presents the greatest potential for intentional fallacies of interpretation. Analysis using this type of evidence can easily become more concerned with external evidence than the internal content of the work.

Cheers.

 

[concernedcitizen]

By claiming that any game that carries Fallout's setting would be a good Fallout game in your eyes, you are implicitly saying that Fallout's gameplay doesn't matter at all.

No, the implication would be that it matters less than something else, not "not at all". This should be clear.

You are throwing out any and all objective definitions or evaluations in favour of your own opinion.

If I preface something I say with "this is my opinion", and I am careful not to present it as maintaining any degree of objectivity which is guided by anything other than my personal experiences and preferences, then yes, this is pretty much what I'm doing. It's not problematic, because I called it an opinion. You may notice that an opinion is defined as a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. With this definition in mind, exactly what place is there for objectivity in stating my opinion, which is what I said I'm doing?

No, this is not acceptable to me or many people on this site because that is *exactly* what Bethesda is now doing and what we hate to see happen. Essentially, you are condoning Bethesda's actions and perversions of the license by simply claiming that 'hey, it's all about opinions anyway'.

I have been ridiculously careful in pointing out that what I am sharing is my opinion, no more and no less. This is not acceptable? If you read other things from my opinion, like my condoning of everything Bethesda do, then when you get upset about them, it's not my fault, because it was in no way part of what I said.

For the umpteenth time *I am not talking about opinions or what people value in a Fallout title*. Why you continue to try to twist *my* arguments into that is beyond me.

To clarify yet again, I am talking about my opinion. How clear can it get? Did you see that? Let me make it even clearer:

For the umpteenth time *I am not talking about opinions or what people value in a Fallout title*

For the umpteenth time *I AM talking about opinions and what I value in a Fallout title*

With this in mind, who is it that's doing the twisting here? I'm not even attempting to engage what you're ranting about, it's not a factor in my thoughts at all. Yet when I share my opinion, you constantly try to respond to it with what you're talking about, and then tell me that what I have shared is not my opinion, despite the fact that I've said that it is.

Let me try this yet again: you like certain things in Fallout, and you dislike others. Fine, and I've never in this entire thread contested that or your right to feel that way.

However, throughout this thread you have insisted on then saying that *I* should not be whining, and that my *opinions* are simply different from yours. Which is absolute fucking bullshit, *because I was never talking about opinions*.
Yet you *still* continue to try to boil down my arguments to simply opinions.

Whatever it is you would like to call your approach to this issue: perspective, opinion, god-given wisdom, objective understanding, whatever. It has nothing to do with my opinion, and that's what I call mine, an opinion. It's not objective, no, it's based on my preferences, and I'm not foolish enough to pretend that I have some sort of ultimate understanding of the universe which guides me in forming opinions objectively. When I state my opinion, and you respond with (whatever it is you've go there), well, the connection there isn't my doing. I did not seek to address whatever it is that you keep sharing (if not an opinion), until you posted it in response to mine. What I'm saying is that your (contribution, I shall call it), has no bearing on my opinion. Keep sharing it, I'm not trying to tell you to stop, just I'm attempting to explain that it is in no way relevant to what I've said.

Edit: typo and...

to respond to Punter X again, my apologies to all if somehow I've been vague in my wording on the matter. I certainly didn't intend it to ever sound like I was sure that this will be a "Fallout 3" type game. In fact, I'm pretty much dead certain that it won't. A "Fallout game" is all I'm really hanging out for, as much as I'd like a "Fallout 3", I have accepted that at this stage it's pretty unlikely.

 

[Sander]

To clarify yet again, I am talking about my opinion. How clear can it get? Did you see that? Let me make it even clearer:

For the umpteenth time *I am not talking about opinions or what people value in a Fallout title*

For the umpteenth time *I AM talking about opinions and what I value in a Fallout title*

With this in mind, who is it that's doing the twisting here? I'm not even attempting to engage what you're ranting about, it's not a factor in my thoughts at all. Yet when I share my opinion, you constantly try to respond to it with what you're talking about, and then tell me that what I have shared is not my opinion, despite the fact that I've said that it is.

*sigh*
As I have now said for way too many times already: you are trying to force my position into one of opinion by continually equating *your* opinion with *my* objective definition and then pretending that *I* am talking about opinions.
*That's* the bloody problem. I have never stated that you did not share your opinion, nor that you have no right to such an opinion yet you continually claim that I have.

Whatever it is you would like to call your approach to this issue: perspective, opinion, god-given wisdom, objective understanding, whatever. It has nothing to do with my opinion, and that's what I call mine, an opinion. It's not objective, no, it's based on my preferences, and I'm not foolish enough to pretend that I have some sort of ultimate understanding of the universe which guides me in forming opinions objectively. When I state my opinion, and you respond with (whatever it is you've go there), well, the connection there isn't my doing. I did not seek to address whatever it is that you keep sharing (if not an opinion), until you posted it in response to mine. What I'm saying is that your (contribution, I shall call it), has no bearing on my opinion. Keep sharing it, I'm not trying to tell you to stop, just I'm attempting to explain that it is in no way relevant to what I've said.

Edit: typo.

And here you do it yet again. I have never pretended anywhere that my opinions are the ultimate truth, but that the objective observations and analyses I've made are.

Also, Hideous Freak: banned for double registering. You can't slip by us, Max Demian.

And in response to your rather silly points: I'll have to yet again point out that these objectives and designs have been made clear by the developers *during the design of the game*. Hence there is no distortion after the fact by the designers. These core design also flow very obviously from the game itself.

 

[Punter X]

@sander:sorry to bring this up again (you might have missed it since it was originally in an edit):

in regard to the core design argument could i ask you to confirm or deny that you would be less pissed if the current project was "Fallout:FPS" rather than "Fallout 3" (note less pissed as it's not terribly evident that they're even holding true to the setting and "feel" imho but i'm mainly concerned here with gameplay)