Gamespot has another article on Fallout 3

[Sir Kalthorine]

Just read Tor's article... apart from a coupla very minor inaccuracies (inaccuracies that are perfectly excusable for someone who is not an NMA veteran IMHO), I thought the article was fair, well-written and came across as, if anything, leaning towards being pro-FO3. I did, however, find some of the criticism of the article on this thread to be a little nitpicky (although equally Tor's response was also a tad over the top).

As Odin suggests, lets give Tor the credit he deserves for not only maintaining a high profile for what Interplay did to BIS, but also linking people to this forum. We are all (well, most of us) on the same side here guys n gals, and we don't do ourselves any favours sometimes by providing the "Fallout Fanbois are a bunch of rabid dogs" group with ammunition when we overreact to what was in essence an article which was helpful to our cause.

 

[Slaughter]

It's a fun game to pic the flaws out of this article, just take a look at it. For instance, Tor seems to hold the belief the Fallout gaming community wasn't aware of the co-op mode to be implemented in Van Buren. Also, he was forbidden to show the images on Gamespot by none other than Herve Caen

I think you should be a little more careful about how you write some of the news posts here at NMA. This article gives (at least before the edit) a fairly negative impression of the GameSpot initiative, when in fact it is a good thing. This should have read: "Thank you Tor for trying to help the Fallout community!"

As for the insignificant errors in the article, you could have sent him a mail. And the Fallout community is a little more than those who hang at the BIS and NMA boards. I know there are quite a few fans that just want to be surprised by the game going gold, and do not follow Fallout boards.

Anyway, I'm glad NMA is here, and you do a great job reporting news. I just wish you were a bit more supportive about others that try to help Fallout. That means being a bit less critic .

EDIT: in all fairness, though, I think it's great that Tor did turn the focus to this delicate subject. You have the gratitude of the Fallout gaming community, Tor

This is good! This should have been the main scope of the news post. If you wanted you could have added a small note that maybe a few more Fallout fans than Tor thought did know about the coop, but I don't really see that as necessarily. In general I think Tor is right. There are many fans that do not follow the development of the game closely, and that was surprised by these things.

Anyway, hope you too no offence, was just meant as a friendly observation. The article (at least before the edit) gives people a wrong impression.

 

[Puuk]

Overall, I liked the article. The only glaring thing I saw wrong (and no one else would know this save the other devs) was that it wasn't the Brotherhood of Steel holding the PC prisoner. It had to do with a pre-war government quarantine protocol that was still being executed after the bombs fell. And, the PC could not start in multiple locations. However, like in the previous games, the PC was free to go wherever he wanted when he wanted from the onset. It was our goal to stick with the feel of Fallout 1 as much as possible.

 

[MeatPoPsicKLe]

Thanks Puuk, (greedily sucking up any and all hints of the story line of F3) I hope your holidays are better than the last week has been for you Damian. Good luck in the future!

Long live Fallout!

 

[Brother None]

I think you should be a little more careful about how you write some of the news posts here at NMA. This article gives (at least before the edit) a fairly negative impression of the GameSpot initiative, when in fact it is a good thing. This should have read: "Thank you Tor for trying to help the Fallout community!"

True, true.

As for the insignificant errors in the article, you could have sent him a mail.

Not my job to correct Gamespot's mistakes

Anyway, I'm glad NMA is here, and you do a great job reporting news. I just wish you were a bit more supportive about others that try to help Fallout. That means being a bit less critic .

True, true, I concede, on hindsight the post is a bit over-the-top, but this goes a long way back into Gamespot's bothersome coverage of the events surrounding FooS in particular. You people are right, though, prolly shouldn't have taken it out on this article, though.

Water under the bridge.

This is good! This should have been the main scope of the news post.

Yip, 't wasn't my attention to turn all attention to the truly minor flaws in the article (and the glaring flaw Puuk mentions, which was indeed a secret).

I'm not going to go back now and completely edit it out, though, that would be like lieing, but I did edit that thanks-note on because the newspost was, indeed, a bit unfair.

 

[Slaughter]

That's great