Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[Sander]

@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)

I'd still be pissed, since I want a full sequel. But at least they wouldn't be calling it Fallout 3, so yes, I would be less pissed.
Compare this to Fallout: Tactics, which isn't really hated or seen as a terrible thing, mainly because it isn't a full sequel but a spin-off.

 

[concernedcitizen]

*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.

No, I don't think I am. How is me saying "what you are sharing does not relate to my opinion, why when I share my opinion do you keep saying it?" equating them? It's the exact opposite, surely?

*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.

When I share my opinion, and you tell me repeatedly that I have "missed the point", then talk about your objective definitions as if they are supposed to present some sort of rebuttal to my opinion, what exactly am I meant to think?

"Oh ok, I just said here's my opinion, and some guy has provided me with his objective definitions on the matter. That's ok though, he's not arguing my opinion (despite saying that I have missed THE point in saying it), he's just sharing these definitions, and telling me that I don't understand at the same time"? If that's the response that you expected, and you seriously think that's logical, then I guess we're wired quite differently.

I can see that you want to share these objective definitions, and that's cool. What I'm saying is that perhaps, just perhaps, there is a better way to do this than in *direct* response to me stating my opinion, while at the same time telling me that I don't understand what we're talking about (when I've made it clear that I'm discussing my opinion, and I understand that quite well) and then getting out of sorts about it when I assume that you're trying to establish some sort of relation between the two, and proceed to discuss your objective definitions in that context.

 

[Punter X]

which, to me, is what concernedcitizen is after when he talks of a "Fallout game"

to be honest i probably wouldn't be pissed at them if they had made it a spin-off as while i would rather have a proper sequel i must admit to never having much faith in them having the ability/inclination of making one (i think i must be the only one who didn't watch the trailer because i have no interest in "teasers")

edit:fixing a spot of grammar

 

[Sander]

No, I don't think I am. How is me saying "what you are sharing does not relate to my opinion, why when I share my opinion do you keep saying it?" equating them? It's the exact opposite, surely?

*sigh*
Continually throughout this thread, to my responses you have said 'Well my opinion is different *from yours*.'

And with that, I'm done with this. I have no taste to continue to talk to someone who flat-out denies facts.

 

[concernedcitizen]

*sigh*
Continually throughout this thread, to my responses you have said 'Well my opinion is different *from yours*.'

And with that, I'm done with this. I have no taste to continue to talk to someone who flat-out denies facts.

When you tell someone than their opinion "misses the point", and respond with this objectivity, I think it should be pretty obvious how they would manage to assume that what you're pushing is some sort of opinion. The alternative to making this assumption would be to think that you are attacking an opinion using these "objective definitions", and obviously you wouldn't be silly enough to do that, which is why I assumed that you wished to debate opinions (folly in itself).

I would try to explain further, but my desire to continue this is also limited. In closing however, I would like to just say that I think this could have been avoided if our conversation was a little less heated. After all, I would happily acknowledge that the Fallout 3 we're looking at is not, based on those objective definitions, a "true" Fallout sequel.

Edit: Perhaps too argumentative, genuinely not my intention so I have edited.

 

[Briosafreak]

I would advise, if I may be so bold, that if you wish to avoid further high blood pressure incidents, you could avoid sharing your objective definitions by telling people that their opinion misses the point, then rolling out said definitions.

Please don't be so bold.

Time to move on

 

[Madbringer]

What I will not happily accept is that my opinion "misses the fucking point" because of this, which is exactly what it looked like you were saying.

Then you're showing yourself as nothing more than an ignorant person, who instead of engaging in an educational discussion, wants to sell his set-in-stone point of view, masking it with fancy worded rants.

More then that, you don't discuss the case in point (why Fallout 3 is/will be unworthy of it's heritage), you cleverly dodge any argument Sander dropped by saying, more or less, "I think different, and that's that."

That ain't a discussion mate, that's (from Sander's point of view) hitting your head against a brick wall. So in all fairness, good it's over...

Time to move on, indeed. Neeeeext.

 

[concernedcitizen]

I've just edited the post to (hopefully) better reflect my point here.

If I was aware that we were interested in discussing objectivity, there would have been no argument whatsoever, as from what I can see I pretty much agree on this. It was the juxtaposition of this objectivity against my own opinion which confused me, and led to the prolonged discussion which we have had here, despite not actually being talking about the same thing.

Edit: alright alright I get it, I just didn't want to leave it without some sort of resolution and acknowledgement of my part in this misunderstanding.

 

[Briosafreak]

Time to move on

 

[Silencer]

nothingtoseehere

 

[Punter X]

to be honest i feel that a point to be taken into consideration is the sheer amount of times regulars here are confronted with the same old tired arguments (often from those with an incomplete, or at times apparently any, knowledge of Fallout's history) to which they have replied/rebutted many times before. it can fray the nerves somewhat (so to speak)

in your closing i'm afraid you run the risk of appearing to be somewhat disingenious (to my eyes at least) when you state that "the Fallout 3 we're looking at is not, based on those objective definitions, a "true" Fallout sequel" as, unless i'm mistaken, you yourself are less than particularly enthusiastic at them calling the current project "Fallout 3" ("I don't tend to refer to it as Fallout 3 because I'm not convinced on that front at all either"

so if you don't mind i think a better closing would be:

sander wants/demands Fallout 3
"I'd still be pissed, since I want a full sequel. But at least they wouldn't be calling it Fallout 3"

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

edit: apologies the "Time to move on" was yet to make an appearance when i was composing the post

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

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

How can garbage be garbled?

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.

Oh please do... nope sorry still dark. Trouble with Intentional Fallacy as applied to anything is it basically says the artist isn't important the reviewer is. Who said this critics of course. Not exactly an unbiased philosophy.

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.

Gee are you not old enough to have played any other games from 97 or before? They didn't have the technology argument is easily rtrashed by simply going to look at some of games from the same time.

 

[Series8217]

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.

Gee are you not old enough to have played any other games from 97 or before? They didn't have the technology argument is easily rtrashed by simply going to look at some of games from the same time.

Come on requiem... don't pull that BS. We all know that Crusader: No Remorse was turn-based, System Shock didn't come out until 2005, and Diablo wasn't a real-time action-RPG that preceded Fallout even after being delayed for too long. The technology wasn't there!

 

[MurkyShadow]

Image from"Good ol' Syndicate Wars Intro"

Good old Syndicate Wars from Bullfrog as they were still independent.
These were truly the days, okay, Syndicate were even more the days,
but none the less.

But yes, time to move on.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Again to clarify this "Realtime or '3d' wasn't technical possible" topic, just the small list of games i found on abandonia.com wich are '3d' and/or real-time (only RPG's), wich i recognized as such:
Abandoned Places (1992)
Al Qadim - The Genies Curse (1994)
Amberstar (1992 - with a big part of 3D travelling through the citys; also Ambermoon wich isn't at Abandonia...)
Amulets and Armor (1997!)
Anvil of Dawn (1995)
The Bards Tale (1988 and it's sequels..)
Blood Omen - Legacy Of Kain (1997)
Crystals of Arborea (1990)
Darklands (1992 - RT combat with pause mode)
Dungeon Master (1989, and Dungeon Master II - 1994)
Eye of the Beholder 1 (1990 - and a lot of sequels)
Faery Tale Adventure (1989)
Ishar 1 - Legend of the Fortress (1992 and it sequels)
Lands of Lore (1993)
Legends of Valour (1993)
Menzoberranzan (1994)
Moonstone - A Hard Days Knight (1992)
Obitus (1991)
Realms of Arkania - Blade of Destiny (1992)
Robinsons Requiem (1994)
Spirit of Excalibur (1990)
Superhero League of Hoboken (1994)
The Elder Scrolls - Arena (1994)
Vengeance of Excalibur (1991)
Whales Voyage (1993)
Wizardry VII - Crusaders of the Dark Savant (1992)
World Of Xeen (1994)

And these are only the games they've listed and wich are more or less for free today (as far as i know)...
So no, they could have made some 3D game... They could have also made some ISO/3D Style game, where you switch to 3D in combat or vice versa.
So there were a lot of possibilites. I mean look at Amberstar for example or the DSA games and so on...

I hope this helps to clarify that 'Black Isle' didn't planed on making 'The younger Discs - Fallout ' and changed to Fallout solely because of technical limitations. They simply didn't aimed for 'The Younger Discs - Fallout' but for Fallout...

-edit-
removed betryal at korondor

 

[Fleisch]

BadKarma wrote:

Again to clarify this "Realtime or '3d' wasn't technical possible" topic, just the small list of games i found on abandonia.com wich are '3d' and/or real-time (only RPG's), wich i recognized as such:

Yikes, that's crazy talk! I remember a lot of those games and they were most definitely turn-based, at least in combat (Darklands, Betrayal at Krondor, etc.)

However, while your game choice is wrong, your basic point is certainly correct. There were a lot of 1st-person perspective RPGS, some of which had free movement, and real time passing outside of combat, but the first one I remember in 3D was Ultima Underworld. I remember it well, because trying to play it made me motion sick. It came out in 1992 - five years before Fallout. In fact, its engine is considered to have been the inspiration for the first well-known FPS, Wolfenstein 3D (the beginning of the end for my addiction to gaming).

 

[Pariah]

They can't leave all the work behind they did for TES, just because this is a new game for them.

If they can't, that means they lack creativity and originality.

They bought this franchise knowing that it was totally different from their usual stuff. If they realized that whatever they did with it was going to butcher the original game's content in the first place, where was the sense in buying it?

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.

You're missing the point entirely.

The fact that Fallout is not a football game is exactly what makes the concept of such a game an anacronism. You can have a "Fallout game" OR you can have a "Football game," but you can't have a "Fallout Football game."

This is basically what I tried to express to you in my previous post; the main problem with your arguments is that you're arguing under the perception that these game descriptions would still qualify as a Fallout when they, in fact, do not.

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.

The finality of the product doesn't belong to the author OR the world. The product belongs to itself because that's exactly what it defines. It has nothing to do with the fans' perceptions and everything to do with the changes they see happening to the game until such a point where the game is no longer the definition of the product it once was and it is then something completely different.

 

[concernedcitizen]

I'm not about to be drawn into another waste of time, but I'd like to point out that what I said kind of amounts to if that's what they want, they can call it whatever they want. I've got my opinions and they've got theirs. Good day to you.

 

[Nim82]

Heh, using the football comparison:

Fallout was American Football, Bethesda have given us Soccer. Differently shaped ball and a different set of rules.

When we bitch and whine about the change, Bethesda (and those of you who support them) are basically saying: 'Look, they are both team games, they both have balls, and they both are played on a field - what's the big deal' The deal is they are two fundamentally different games, with vastly different gameplay.

To relate it more directly with FO:

The Field (The world/perspective) is different.
The Ball (The combat) is different, as is the way it is handled.
The team (The dialogue etc) is different.
The Rules (Gameplay) are different.
The Dress code (Clothing/characters) is different.
The general appeal is totally different!

There's more comparisons I could make, but it's late & well I really can't be bothered. If that doesn't make it obvious I don't know what will

 

[Davaris]

to be honest i feel that a point to be taken into consideration is the sheer amount of times regulars here are confronted with the same old tired arguments (often from those with an incomplete, or at times apparently any, knowledge of Fallout's history) to which they have replied/rebutted many times before. it can fray the nerves somewhat (so to speak)

Perhaps NMA needs a special education zone? It could include topics such as the history of video games (dates, perspectives, realtime/turn based), the history of Fallout with links, how to conduct logical arguments by offering proof rather than opinions, etc.

It could save a lot of pain especially with the upcoming F3. Perhaps the mods could ban some people from all areas (for a short time) except the special education zone.

EDIT:
I know of some sites that make people wait a week before their first post. Perhaps a system like this and the education board could help.