Game Informer Unlimited FAQ and video

Angry_Games said:
*Standard Oblivion fanboy dribble*

Are you guys all working off similar templates, or is it just one person rejoining under different aliases. It's always the same stupid story:

- I'm a big Fallout fan
- I've been lurking here for ages
- I've just played the original FO(s) again
- How can you guys be upset
- The new game's not even released yet
- I'm really looking forward to FO3
- I'm a *REALLY* big fan of the original FO games
- It's time everyone moved on now
- You're all wrong

Did I miss anything?

I have a suggestion. Why don't you (one or all) just make a standard template and repost it over and over again. That way you save yourselve(s) some time as you only have to create a new account, and you save us some time as we can see it's the same fucking dribble and just skip over it! :roll:

Is there any way to at least see if these "standard" pro-Beth posts are originating from the same IP?

Mick
 
Brother None said:
Q: Will porting the game to consoles hurt the PC version?
A: Hmm... Well, the game’s not really being ported anywhere. It’s being built from the ground up for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC. [...]

Right there! Note the order, Xbox360, then the playstation3, then PC.

Xbox360 it will be designed for then ported. Thats it for me. If he listed PC first I would been... ok with the idea. but that order list. is how it came into his mind. that means Xbox first. That means Xbox controller. This game is finished Fallout 3 died before it left the building.

Also note. my non-PC gaming friend got the GI article. He refused to play the original Fallouts cause Isometric "is tough to play" he says.

He thought Fallout 3 looks awesome. I said but its not. Its not fallout. its not what it should be.

His reply: Dosen't matter because if Oblivion was cool then Fallout 3 will be cool.

Neh if only to be still so nieve. Were gifted to know what came before and how it should be. The target audience.. not a clue they'll buy with out a care. Because its bethesda and they made Elder Scrolls fun to play. And theres still people who worship the orginal Fallouts so that can only mean good things for the latest incarnation.

Bethesda figured this tactic out. Very sutble.
 
Mick1965 said:
Are you guys all working off similar templates, or is it just one person rejoining under different aliases. It's always the same stupid story:

- I'm a big Fallout fan
- I've been lurking here for ages
- I've just played the original FO(s) again
- How can you guys be upset
- The new game's not even released yet
- I'm really looking forward to FO3
- I'm a *REALLY* big fan of the original FO games
- It's time everyone moved on now
- You're all wrong

Did I miss anything?

I have a suggestion. Why don't you (one or all) just make a standard template and repost it over and over again. That way you save yourselve(s) some time as you only have to create a new account, and you save us some time as we can see it's the same fucking dribble and just skip over it! :roll:

Is there any way to at least see if these "standard" pro-Beth posts are originating from the same IP?

Mick

Hi Mick,

I'm a big Fallout fan. I've joined NMA over 5 years ago. Been somewhat less active over the past 3 years, ok... There's finishing school, finding work & a gf, and playing other games.

As with many other things, Fallout is one of those good things that keep recurring in my life. When stuck, or when I want to discuss it's supremacy with like-minded people, I return "home" - being here.

The NMA crowd is quite cyinical and sceptical, but that is what I like. You have got to go for the best: aim high, this yields the best results. Scepticism is needed here.

Still, I believe that basing judgement on partial data is incorrect. You can assume all you want, we know but one thing about the surrounding world: Nothing is certain, but that everything perishes.

I did not want to assume everything Fallout was already perished. After reading these comments to the GI article, I decided to review my opinion. Indeed, changing the elements mentioned there, would make the game a "Fallout-like" game - but not Fallout.

Some weird hybrid, or bastard child, whatever... They should have given it another name, like "fallout arcade" or something, then we would have known what to expect.

Thanks Bethesda. Very much. I will be releasing the funding for that automated mortar now.
 
Mick1965 said:
Did I miss anything?

- The only ones here who are sensible are people who happen to say the same things I do
- Fallout 3 will be true to the original games because "what Fallout is" can be defined arbitrarily

Also, quillab, double posting is bad.
 
Unillenium said:
Angry_Games said:
so....after just finishing Fallout 1 for the first time in about 8 years (playing through them both again while waiting for Fallout3), googled around here and there, and happened to see a link at Gamespot that led to this thread.

And after reading it..

ETC ETC ETC.

Anyhow.

- We have more than just the teaser trailer.
- Don't compare us to 'right wing nut jobs' just because we have an opinion about something.

Read what he said. He's not comparing you to right wing nut jobs just because you have an opinion, he's comparing you to right wing nut jobs because you're fed a scrap of information and try to infer all these ridiculous things about it, magnify any tiny thing that you think is wrong and make a huge deal of it. (I have laughed several times daily at the people who are honest-to-god concerned about the new vault suits being not-skin-tight, LOL!)

But I can't understand how everyone assumes Fallout3 is going to suck because they personally didn't like Oblivion.
Billy doesnt like bees, therefore billy doesnt like bee larvae.
This analogy holds no water, nor does it apply in real life. E.g. the projects the fallout devs worked on before fallout were largely retarded.
It seems that a lot of you have put all your emotions into the hate basket already without realizing something so important that it's odd to me that you don't already see it....that everyone's perception of something is slightly different than everyone else's.

Thusfar you've admitted to having lurked around here, found a forum post from people who all share a common view that you don't happen to share and have posted a 500 word essay on just how wrong they are for having that opinion. So you may as well have cut down the post and summed it up by saying "I am trolling."

Another bit to think about is just how popular the Elder Scrolls series really is. Extremely popular. It's no insult to anyone here that hates the series or a specific game to hear that regardless of how much you hate it, it's a smashing success. I don't think I've seen a single positive comment in this thread about the game (nor about Oblivion). Mostly I see the same mindless internet-style message board hate that I see in tech forums (INTEL SUXORS OMG!!! and yet the guy saying it probably never used an Intel anything so how could he make such a statement?), blogs, etc.
Once again you have the consitutional right to abstain from participation in this forum if it's contents offend you.

Anyways I read it once and to comment on specific portions I have to re-read it and I just woke up. Bottom line I gaurantee you this man is in some way affiliated with Bethesda Softworks and the way to know is if a 1 time poster actually comes back to comb for responses to his post.

No. I was trolling. This person is clearly not trolling. Learn the difference.

You guarantee he's involved with bethsoft because of that post? You guarantee it? How much money will you give me once an administrator confirms he isn't one? Honestly, you're making you and all your friends look incredibly stupid every time one of you claims somebody who is obviously not being a fanboi in any way is in fact being paid by bethsoft.

- Fallout 3 will be true to the original games because "what Fallout is" can be defined arbitrarily

It turns out this is true, despite the stuff Sander posts about objective proofs and analysis while breaking forum rules and insulting and swearing at other posters.

I didn't expect you to, after all, it's from Tactics Laughing
These threads actually made me reinstall tactics last night :)

Are you guys all working off similar templates, or is it just one person rejoining under different aliases. It's always the same stupid story:
[...]
Is there any way to at least see if these "standard" pro-Beth posts are originating from the same IP?
[...]

This is obviously a fallacy, but may be worth it for your extremely closed echo-chamber of a community to consider: if all of these newcomers are coming in with the same common-sense response to your view of FO3/Bethsoft/etc., perhaps there's something to it and your view is pretty screwed up.

See above for the retardedness of your bethsoft plant claims etc.

First person is not the only way to immerse a gamer.

Nobody said it wasn't, but the claim is that first person is a good/better way to immerse the gamer. It not being the ONLY way is not a valid argument that it should not be used to immerse the gamer, despite it having been done in the past a different way.

I think most of us can't wait for FO3 (to a point), which is why we're so easily upset by the evidence available. Not one person here who says "it will suck" is not going to at least read reviews when the game comes out, hoping against hope that it didn't suck after all.

No, see, this is exactly what he's referring to. The fact that you take it for granted that a fan should be upset by the evidence available. Aside from the fact that the evidence is minuscule (you only know for sure that it'll be FPV, e.g. but whining about how "super mutants seem prevalent and this is bad canon!" is incredibly dumb because you are, again, watching the review some guy wrote about a press tech demo he was shown), this is a ridiculous and unhealthy view to have. Evidence of this is furthered by you (the collective you -- I've lost track) inferring from this that I or he is a Bethsoft fanboi/plant and/or defending and/or liking whatever games or other companies you deem wrong, when we haven't done that at all.

How can you NOT have an opinion on a game you CAN'T WAIT for, after being given information that shows it's most basic concepts are going to be far astray from what you would expect from a Fallout sequel?

Like the post that other guy cross-site trolled about, the point is that people are saying "THIS GAME WILL SUCK" like they have magical knowledge, instead of saying "I don't like the direction this is going, it doesn't seem true to the original." Amusingly, despite all these people having played fallout 3 and knowing for sure that it really is going to suck when it gets released to the public, they say (or even if they don't say, they will do it anyway) that they will buy it in case they're wrong and it's good. If that's a possibility, why do you keep whining about how it can't possibly be good given the solid facts we've been given? You admit yourself that you just don't know.

I mean seriously, go back through this thread and read some of the incredibly appalling posts about people wishing 9/11 on Bethsoft for this review by a third party, or the people threatening to boycott/prevent sales or the people saying that fallout is for sure dead and there's no possibility of resurrection and making emo run-on sentences about death and making image macros to that effect or the guys (I think from a different post) who say "If you don't have anything bad to say [about Bethsoft], don't say anything at all" and to "not collaborate to make the game better". It's fucking delusional and you should be seriously concerned for the mental health of some of these people.
 
Vehementi said:
Like the post that other guy cross-site trolled about, the point is that people are saying "THIS GAME WILL SUCK" like they have magical knowledge, instead of saying "I don't like the direction this is going, it doesn't seem true to the original." Amusingly, despite all these people having played fallout 3 and knowing for sure that it really is going to suck when it gets released to the public, they say (or even if they don't say, they will do it anyway) that they will buy it in case they're wrong and it's good. If that's a possibility, why do you keep whining about how it can't possibly be good given the solid facts we've been given? You admit yourself that you just don't know.

That's right, we just don't know. And we will continue to "just not know" until the release. What point, exactly, do you profess people start expressing their opinions on it? Before any facts were released people were screaming at us not to draw any conclusions, and we listened, assuming Bethesda wasn't stupid enough to make the highly original Fallout into another RT or RTwP FP/over the shoulder game. Obviously, we were wrong, so we're not about to listen again to people that say we should ignore the facts and just wait for more facts, which you'll tell us to ignore and wait for more facts.

Doesn't work that way.
 
vehementi, the number of insults in your post make you look like a child. :roll:

Also it shows that you are not at all objective.

and "the projects the fallout devs worked on before fallout were largely retarded." - that's just wrong, but obviously you dont even know who the fallout devs are or what they made...
 
Kukident said:
and "the projects the fallout devs worked on before fallout were largely retarded." - that's just wrong, but obviously you dont even know who the fallout devs are or what they made...

Actually, he's right, most Fallout devs didn't have any excellent games under their belt before Fallout.

That's why it's lovely that they didn't call their game Wasteland 2, that would've pissed the old Wasteland fans off, instead they made their own franchise, called Fallout.

Not exactly the same as with Bethesda.
 
Brother None said:
Kukident said:
and "the projects the fallout devs worked on before fallout were largely retarded." - that's just wrong, but obviously you dont even know who the fallout devs are or what they made...

Actually, he's right, most Fallout devs didn't have any excellent games under their belt before Fallout.

That's why it's lovely that they didn't call their game Wasteland 2, that would've pissed the old Wasteland fans off, instead they made their own franchise, called Fallout.

Not exactly the same as with Bethesda.
probably you know it 3000 times better than me,.. but didn't some of them work on planescape tornment?

and interplay made a lot of good games even before fallout, surely some of the fallout devs worked on them, too.
 
Kukident said:
probably you know it 3000 times better than me,.. but didn't some of them work on planescape tornment?

and interplay made a lot of good games even before fallout, surely some of the fallout devs worked on them, too.

Planescape Torment was after Fallout. Here's what some of the leads of Fallout did before Fallout;

Tim Cain:
Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (1997), Interplay Productions, Inc.
Atomic Bomberman (1996), Interplay Entertainment Corp.
M.A.X.: Mechanized Assault and Exploration (1996), Interplay Productions, Inc.
Stonekeep (1995), Interplay Productions Ltd.
Rags to Riches: The Financial Market Simulation (1993), Interplay Entertainment Corp.
The Bard's Tale Construction Set (1991), Interplay Productions, Inc.

Leonard Boyarsky:
Stonekeep (1995), Interplay Productions Ltd.
Unnatural Selection (1993), Maxis Software Inc.
Castles II: Siege & Conquest (1992), Interplay Entertainment Corp.

Jason Anderson:
Stonekeep (1995), Interplay Productions Ltd.
 
Kukident said:
vehementi, the number of insults in your post make you look like a child. :roll:

Also it shows that you are not at all objective.

and "the projects the fallout devs worked on before fallout were largely retarded." - that's just wrong, but obviously you dont even know who the fallout devs are or what they made...

You're right. I'm not objective. Let me let you in on a few little secrets:

- I didn't like Morrowind
- I couldn't play Oblivion past one playthrough and that was with me getting really tired and the repetition of the gates and just casting fly/speed/whatever and powering through them without caring
- I would prefer TB/Isometric for Fallout 3 over RT with pauses and FPV.

But you know what? Since Fallout 3 hasn't been released yet, I don't know whether it will be good or not. You can say "Well, it's FPV, and I don't like that feature," but that's about it. You can only blindly speculate about how it will fit into the game with all the rest of the elements and game systems you know nothing about. You don't know whether or not it will feel like a true successor or a spin-off or whether you will like the game at all (and seriously, don't bother bringing up the "core design" documents).

If you want to have a patently premature, baseless "opinion" on the game, go for it, but realize that it just makes you look silly (hence all the derision for you guys) to stomp around saying that the game will suck.

That's why it's lovely that they didn't call their game Wasteland 2, that would've pissed the old Wasteland fans off, instead they made their own franchise, called Fallout.

It's pretty obvious that that's not why they didn't call their game Wasteland 2.

That's right, we just don't know. And we will continue to "just not know" until the release. What point, exactly, do you profess people start expressing their opinions on it? Before any facts were released people were screaming at us not to draw any conclusions, and we listened, assuming Bethesda wasn't stupid enough to make the highly original Fallout into another RT or RTwP FP/over the shoulder game. Obviously, we were wrong, so we're not about to listen again to people that say we should ignore the facts and just wait for more facts, which you'll tell us to ignore and wait for more facts.

Doesn't work that way.

Well, uh, yes, sorry to break it to you but it does work that way. When you cried about whatever little information was available and people said, "Wait for more facts," they weren't referring to a short preview 18 months before the game is due to release. They meant, wait until you play the game, or a demo, or whatever. And saying, "Oho, we were wrong* to listen to them so we won't do that again," is clearly a fallacy.

*by wrong, here you mean that you continued to be dissatisfied with more news about the game, which says nothing, obviously.
 
Vehementi said:
- Fallout 3 will be true to the original games because "what Fallout is" can be defined arbitrarily

It turns out this is true,

How can it be "true" when it is at the very best a tautology? "It's a good thing that Orange 2 is made out of Apple, because I'm an old fan of Orange and the thing that for me is Orange more than anything else is the fact that it's made of organic matter."
 
Per said:
Vehementi said:
- Fallout 3 will be true to the original games because "what Fallout is" can be defined arbitrarily

It turns out this is true,

How can it be "true" when it is at the very best a tautology? "It's a good thing that Orange 2 is made out of Apple, because I'm an old fan of Orange and the thing that for me is Orange more than anything else is the fact that it's made of organic matter."

I'm not sure tautology means what you think it means. Or, how are you using it here?
 
Vehementi said:
But you know what? Since Fallout 3 hasn't been released yet, I don't know whether it will be good or not. You can say "Well, it's FPV, and I don't like that feature," but that's about it. You can only blindly speculate about how it will fit into the game with all the rest of the elements and game systems you know nothing about. You don't know whether or not it will feel like a true successor or a spin-off or whether you will like the game at all (and seriously, don't bother bringing up the "core design" documents).

If you really think Fallout could work with the lameass dialogue offerings in Oblivion that have been stated to be the model for Fallout 3, all the power to you.

Sure you can't identify how this feature "fits into" the rest of the game but you can tell for certain that such a limited dialogue mechanic doesn't fit into any game, let alone one that we would like to have a diverse amount of options.
 
SimpleMinded said:
Vehementi said:
But you know what? Since Fallout 3 hasn't been released yet, I don't know whether it will be good or not. You can say "Well, it's FPV, and I don't like that feature," but that's about it. You can only blindly speculate about how it will fit into the game with all the rest of the elements and game systems you know nothing about. You don't know whether or not it will feel like a true successor or a spin-off or whether you will like the game at all (and seriously, don't bother bringing up the "core design" documents).

If you really think Fallout could work with the lameass dialogue offerings in Oblivion that have been stated to be the model for Fallout 3, all the power to you.

Sure you can't identify how this feature "fits into" the rest of the game but you can tell for certain that such a limited dialogue mechanic doesn't fit into any game, let alone one that we would like to have a diverse amount of options.

I'm honestly worried for you if you believe that Fallout 3 won't have branching dialogue. This is another example of what I mean -- some guy, a reviewer wrote a preview based on a tech demo he was shown, 18 months before the release of the game. Afterwards, he described the dialogue as "similar to Oblivion", which is, of course, similar to every RPG ever, unless by "similar" you infer "exactly the same in every way". Seriously, you're being ridiculous.

And yes, Oblivion did have branching dialogue and the engine supported it "enough" (better than the Fallout engine did, according to one of the guys who worked on both), it just wasn't used much.
 
If you want to have a patently premature, baseless "opinion" on the game, go for it, but realize that it just makes you look silly (hence all the derision for you guys) to stomp around saying that the game will suck.

Do you go preach this to people who drool over the thought of Fallout 3, thinking it will be such a great game? They don't have any reason to think that either, do they? Or maybe if you're a moron for whom everything goes, then it's OK, no?

Yes, I know the game will suck. Yes, I know it won't feel like a true sequel. Everything so far points to that. The fact that there is still time till the release is absolutely irrelevant.
They knew very well from the start what the fans are expecting from this game, and yet, they go exactly in the opposite direction.
To think, for some reason, they will change direction now, is incredibly naive. It just reeks of dumb optimism. They have their idea of what to do, and that's what they're gonna do.

And what the fuck is this? Wait till the game is out, right? Maybe buy it and play it too, right? And then.. what? Bethesda is happy, they get their money from another raped franchise. What about the fans? What about the game? That doesn't matter, does it? All it matters is that they get their money.
 
FeelTheRads said:
If you want to have a patently premature, baseless "opinion" on the game, go for it, but realize that it just makes you look silly (hence all the derision for you guys) to stomp around saying that the game will suck.

Do you go preach this to people who drool over the thought of Fallout 3, thinking it will be such a great game? They don't have any reason to think that either, do they? Or maybe if you're a moron for whom everything goes, then it's OK, no

I do when their unwarranted positiveness is of such a magnitude as your negativeness, but I haven't seen that on this forum (the little I've read it) or any other forums I frequent. The most I see is, "Hey, this looks great!" which is just fine, much like the, "This looks like shit :(" I occasionally see here. The problem is when people say things like this:

Yes, I know the game will suck. Yes, I know it won't feel like a true sequel.
Even when they ridiculously follow it up with an acknowledgement of that only appearing to be the case, based on their expectations of the game, e.g.:
Everything so far points to that.

The fact that there is still time till the release is absolutely irrelevant.
They knew very well from the start what the fans are expecting from this game, and yet, they go exactly in the opposite direction.
To think, for some reason, they will change direction now, is incredibly naive. It just reeks of dumb optimism. They have their idea of what to do, and that's what they're gonna do.

You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying, "Man, the game sure does look like shit and if going in this direction will SURELY FAIL NO MATTER WHAT. But just hold on another 2 months! They might make it TB/Iso!" I am not (nor is anyone else) claiming that they will change their design. The idea is that you don't know that this design will make the game suck. You don't know. You don't, so stop fucking saying you do.
 
Brother None said:
Tim Cain: (...)
Stonekeep (1995), Interplay Productions Ltd.
(...)
Leonard Boyarsky:
Stonekeep (1995), Interplay Productions Ltd.
(...)
Jason Anderson:
Stonekeep (1995), Interplay Productions Ltd.
It's pretty ironic taking in account that Stonekeep was a RT FPP RPG and was incredibly hyped too :) .
 
You don't know. You don't, so stop fucking saying you do.

It's you who misses the point. The game will indeed suck as a Fallout game, because what they do is not a Fallout game. You can go all you want and babble about this being subjective, that doesn't make you right. It's not subjective. It's not subjective by any stretch of imagination. What Fallout is, is clearly defined. If it strays from that, and what Bethesda does not only strays, but goes way in the opposite direction, then it is not Fallout.
 
Back
Top