I often think psychologists should hold therapy sessions online, as it's remarkable how clear you can sometimes see people when they believe they are anonymous and free to be who they want to be.
I've had some fun with this, pardon the length, but I find this curious.
You see It amazes me this thread has devolved largely into replying to jonnymstgt, and I have held off doing so for some time because I'm at a quandry in regards to his identity. You're either a rather idiotic child pretending to be far older than you are through the expedient of using words over your education level, with varying degrees of success in implementation, and cherry picking words and cultural references from quite probably before you were born in an effort to back up the attempt or you're from another country and trying with limited success to argue in a language which is not your first and which you have yet to grasp the finer points of.
I'd like to assume the former because I think it'd speak more highly of you, and I actually like to think the best of people even over the internet where people often embrace the anonymity to be complete dicks to each other because Santa didn't get them just what they wanted more than anything at 7 and it's time to get even.
Regardless, the problem is that you don't know how to argue.
Or to be more specific you don't know how to discuss, and you're trying far too hard to argue. You seem to be one of those people who desperately wants to be taken as more intelligent than perhaps you are and to do so you want to get into arguments with people and prove them wrong. I very much doubt it matters to you at any point if you yourself are right and I further doubt you really care one way or another whether FO3 is a good game or not. You're primary purpose here seems to be to rip anyone elses points apart as well as you can while contributing nothing of any value yourself. Perhaps you're afraid someone will in turn pick your argument apart and your afraid to leave yourself open to such a possibly damaging event to an ego you seem to have built up around the idea of your own superiority, but it's probably just that you have nothing truly valid to add seeing as you don't really care about the discussion - you're just here in an attempt to proove someone else wrong and then whine about how poorly you feel you've been recieved seeing as you're being ever so polite.
Honestly I nearly teared up for your hardships a few times myself through the last couple pages.
A newcomer myself I really don't want to inflate my postcount beyond yours individually replying to each and every one of the taunts you've so liberally added to this thread you dived headlong into by means of introduction, but I'll see if I can help bring it back on track and you can rise to the occasion to contribute in return by creating and adding your own thoughts to the discussion rather than being so free with yourself destroying everyone elses now that we've had this little moment to oursleves to bond.
jonnymstgt said:
Sorry Mane, but you just can't compare, not even close actually, to the level of intelligence that enemies have in Mass Effect to that of COD4 or R6Vegas2. Sorry, you can't.
Where did I?
Of those I've only actually mentioned or played Mass Effect.
The rest of the statement is misdirection much like Bethesda in many of their interviews and pointed out in quite a few areas on this board and other regarding their production of both FO3 and Oblivion before that. You're unsuccessfully attemptign to put words in my mouth to redirect a point I never made or intended to make in order to say whatever you want to form the basis of your own warped agenda is not appreciated, especially when you address me by title.
I actually have very little interest in Shooters having spent nearly a decade with a firearm in my hands and half of that in third world countries about the globe. I just can't wrap my head around most shooters, they seem collossal wastes of time to me and perhaps due to having been actually involved in similar industries that they try to reproduce they often just strike me as silly or gay and I can't possibly do what I myself know how to do in any of them. They make me feel limited and it's just not fun for me. It's largely due to my life however and I make few judgement about others who are interested in playing them. My background affects my views on many forms of media, though not always uniformly, and while I further enjoy many action movies as much perhaps as the next guy they're also semi-comedic to me much of the time cause I know how a lot of shit in them works in the real worlds and how rare in the extreme it is to see them do so once Hollywood ets ahold of them.
On the otherhand, I loved Shystem Shock 2, Bio Shock, Deus Ex, and Halo 1. Through me out of my element and into some well written sci-fi, cyberpunk, or post-apocalyptic game play and I'm all for it. They've gotta be good games, though, which those are.
jonnymstgt said:
RPG combat was always more Gauntlet type (to use some sort of behavioral example) than anything else.
Huh?
See that's the kinda thing that makes me wonder if you just pulled a couple of dated names out of your ass in an attempt to appear older. I date back to Gary Gygax playing RPGs and I'm old enough to have actually played the orginal Gauntlet in the arcade, and I don't think it was ever termed an RPG. I don't think Golden Axe was either nor do I think the ostrich riding knight from Joust qualifed as an RPG character cause he had a lance.
If you want to date RPGs back to idk Zork which I never played you might make some sense but you'd probably be far more on point with the old SSI Gold Box AD&D games which were probably the true reason I ever moved onto what could even be remotely called an RPG on the computer and which I'd be willing to bet more than a couple of the NMA posters on the board would remember the first time they loaded up thier first Gold Box as well as the first time they lost thier virginity and some would probably remember it better.
Gauntlet is outta left field and while I suppose it was isometric idk where you pulled RPG from in a sprite game where you wandered around randomly generated levels. May as well say Ghosts and Goblins was it's 2d predesessor as an RPG cause you played King Arthur in plate mail in between the times you ran around in your underwear before Gauntlet 'evolved' that game into isometric.
jonnymstgt said:
Can you please give me some examples in Fallout or Fallout 2 where you experience something other than Fight straightforward or Run with regards to how the AI reacts?
Again, huh?
One, Read my frigging post and more importantly try to comprehend it before trying to pick my post apart and asking me to repeat myself or further alaborate just for your edification.
Second, and back to my original point to you, learn to hold a discussion. Asking people to go back and dive into reference material to bring up specific references just so you can probably again pretend not to understand is not a valid arguement. You don't insist on quantitative arguments while failing to even bother managing qualitative on your own.
At best, at best, it is a delaying tactic and probably why most people don't bother to talk to for very long. It's often just not worth the trouble to bother dealing with needling dorks like you, and you in all liklihood take that as a victory to feed your own ego as per your little game. It isn't. It's pathetic. Stop.
If you honestly don't understand a point, that'd be one thing, but you do. I suspect you may be an idiot, but I don't think you're stupid, just fairly obviously not as intelligent as you'd like to think or you'd be able to construct legitimate points on your own rather than just attacking others.
jonnymstgt said:
So I don't know what you are talking about or what you are getting at in regards to enemy AI during combat.
Yeah, you do.
The same point most others had.
It's 2008 and there should be some, and better than what Bethesda seems to feel like giving you, which is the same one that wasn't good enough when Oblivion first released either in, idk, 2005? 2006? I'm too lazy to look, and dont' really care.
jonnymstgt said:
I think there is little to say other than that it is Oblivion with guns. But I still don't know about how bad that evolution is. Specially because I don't know how Fallout would have "evolved" in 2008.
As far as the ragdoll physics for example. I need to remit to the fact that who out there is giving you great "physics" in regards to death scenes for example. Not to mention the fact that in FO1 or FO2 or even an FO3 this would not even be up to discussion.
It's bad.
Did you even play Oblivion? I'm honestly not sure because it's really hard to pull any actualy opinion or background out of anything you say, cause you know, you're so interested in just picking aprt the verbage other folks use.
Oblivion barely could handle the physics of hitting someone with a stick, let alone a stick with an edge. At least not un-modded.
The complexities of ballistics, directed phased energy, whatever consistency the envision for plasma, or the kinetics of explosions is pretty far out of that league.
If it was cutting edge technology that's one thing, it's not, that kinda thing is par for the course now. Has been for a few years. Enough examples have been named. You'd actually be harder pressed to name some games that 'didn't' have them but asking you to go get examples of games that didn't would be rude when I'm too lazy to go track them down myself, and I am.
jonnymstgt said:
My take has always been over and over that I see a lot of complaining on FO3 based on what Bethesda has done but not on what the series would have evolved to.
Really?
Read.
You keep using that word 'evolution' and I seriously think you lack concept or connutation regarding it. It's almost like a word you read somewhere and keep tossing out there as an unsubstantial buzzword you think people will have a hard time responding too because you have very little concept behind it yourself.
Easiest way to defend your point is indeed not having one, so kudos to you there good sir.
Evolve what?
Do you even understand your question?
You don't think there was a clean line of evolution in Fallout already? That Bethesda didn't get it so largely ignored it?
Or you're just talkign about the view aspect?
You think moving from topdown isometric to first person is evolving?
Uhhhh, no?
My ancestors once walked on four legs I believe, I now walk on two, if I go back to four is that evolution?
So if first person gaming came before isometric and you go back to first person is that evolution?
Is this a completely extraneous distraction rather than a point?
The last one is obviously yes. Changing viewpoint an evolution? Are you perhaps using a rather large concept completely erroneously to debate such a simple matter of perspective for no other reason than in a pathetic attempt to derail someone elses question rather than adress their points directly?
That could be called a flanking maneuver.
I'm sorry bethesda AI doesn't support that.
jonnymstgt said:
The series evolved. Interplay droped the ball when it went arcade (console) instead of PC.
No mooch.
Research your arguments before you deploy them, especially here where a large part of the board probably knows what happened with Interplay, Black Isle, Troika, & Obsidian. You probably will too if in all liklihood you respond to this and pretend you knew some smattering you'll likely pull from the wrong source and did the whole time but you'll probably go off tangent to the wrong conclusion in hasty defense.
Interplay tried whoring the Fallout title out rather than greenlighting a quality Fallout 3 and the reasons are probably well known here and long over discussed. Their attempts to make fast capital with crap games is a lesson that many game developers should take to heart but most have completely failed to, much like most mmos coming out see dollar signs before release and are pressured into apealing to the wow kiddies and losing their niche audience of assured and continueing sales which combined with the tendency both genres have of releasing early these days to start making money as soon as possible which promises of patching down the line. It's shoddy thinking that is decimating the game industry in the search of fast bucks and in parrallel to wallstreet doing the same dishonest dumbers game odds are we're heading for the same kind of crash.
Interplay tried to whoring itself to console using the dark alliance engine they had laying around much like Bethesda is whoring the franchise out to console using the Oblivion engine they've got lying around. With the Hype engine in thier hands they'll lily have more success, but it's basically the same thing and means another crap game at the expense of an established franchise to further lower the industries standards.
I'm waiting for Ronald McDonald to grow tits, sooner or later they'll be someone to see that as a great moneymaking idea.
Enough failures to make a cheap buck finally led to greenlighting al old fashioned attempt to make an honest buck and give fans who'd known better the whole time what they wanted. Unfortunately they'd wanted it once Big Business had firm control over the gaming industry and it'd pissed away too much money on the Hollywood ideas of game development. Van Buren, which hell, may not have been the perfect sequel, I had some questions regarding the plot, was still an honest attempt at a sequel and it could have lived up. Not saying it would have at all, and unlike the nonsensical manner you toss out the term evolution it would haveoffered a clear and understandable evolution from FO 1 & 2. It may not have to everyones complete satisfaction, I for one was fond of the shift in the BOS from canon based on teh skethy information at hand, but some of the right people at least were giving it a shot. I'm amazed how near to completion it got shitcanned so Interplay could try to stave off shutting the doors with a fast buck from Bethesda.
Regardless, the outline of Van Buren reads like Shakespeare compared to the mind numbing crap coming from Bethesda.
jonnymstgt said:
For all the trash that one can lair on FO3, the fact of the matter still remains that first person perspective was the way to go in the future and there are a lot of kinks to fix. But RPG's going first person is a normal progression of gaming.
Says who? I don't want to use your tactics, but back it up will ya? I personally 'like'
actual innovation in gaming and would be sorry to see one method or another becoming the ONLY way of doing something. They could have gone totally FPS with FO3 for all I care. I don't think it would be the right way to go, but if it was done well I'd appreciate it. If they got the franchise right I'd play it any way they handed it to me. Do a good job at least though, is that really too much to ask? Most gripes on this board are quality, but you pick apart arguments and keep going towards structure, whether or not whoever's post you mangle was on that topic or not.
It's a risky gamble, but some innovations are. Eye of the Beholder was a different take on the SSI Gold Box games, when I really would have prefered another Gold Box game... but it was good. Front Mission II turned the isometric tactics game of Front mission into a 2d scroller, it blew, it was forgotten, and Front Mission 3 went right back to isometric tactics and stayed that way for like 2 more games or so.
Bio Shock took System Shock and ripped out pretty much all the RPG elements, but by the time it released probably not all that many folks who bought Bioshock knew what the hell System Shock was. I'd been hoping for a System Shock 3 for years, but Bioshock was damn good too. I'd still like a System Shock 3, but Bio Shock gave me more shooter and loads less of the RPG that I prefered and I still got a kick out of it.
The thing was, that was obviously a good game even with preconceptive desires.
...and FO3 just as obviously isn't. Hell, a lot of folks I've read were perfectly willing to give it a chance, even if just a shooter, and unlikely to live up to their sequel hopes, but it can't seem to even manage that.
jonnymstgt said:
Look I grew up with MOOS playing them in a UNIX terminal. Back then doing e,e,w,s was an example of progressing by going East, East, West, South. Then you came into a room with the ice giant and you just hit h to hit. I saw games develop and change. I also understand the nostalgia of such games much as I understand the nostalgia of FO2, X-UFO and Ultima VII Serpent Isle. But those games are gone as well as that style of play.
First off, no idea what you're talking about, aside from a vague secondhand knowledge of UNIX.
Second off, I think you mean X-Com, another fine example of a game that kept spawning crappy sequels to destroy it's franchise cause it never seemed to understand why the first one was so cool.
Third off, you're an idiot. Good games are good games, and many people go back and play good games despite the fact that the graphics suck by todays standards.
Christ you never heard of Dwarf Fortress?
I know people half my age who play that instead of the latest shithot crap foisted upon them by the ball-less wonders afraid to give honest reviews at most craptastic media financed game reviewing sites.
There are plenty of people who in anticipation of FO 3 went lookign for 1 & 2 and in all likely hood they will find after playing them dissapointment in 3 that inspired them to go looking.
Underdogs and other sites like it do not exist soley for old farts to find the games they missed first time around.
I missed halflife myself, everyone told me it was great, I think I was busy wearing green at the time, but I picked up Halflife 2 on a whim. Loved it, went looking for the first one.
Hell, the guy who put me onto both Fallout and System Shock not more than 5 years ago and with far more computer savvy despite being younger found some game a couple years ago called Magic Candle which neither one of us ever played. I still haven't but watching him was pretty damn cool and it had INCREDIBLE gaming concepts that have totally been lost to time. 20 years ago you had an innovative RPG that actually let you divide up your party, full of members you actually sat down and interviewed for a place in your party, and send them out to do different things than each other. Hell some of your party members could actually have trade proffessions and make you some cash being a smith or something while your wizard was off researching new spells and the rest of your party was pursuing the main plot down some rathole dungeon or what not.
If you're actually old enough to have played these old games and aren't just talking out of your ass with a googly eyes glued to each butt cheek then you should actually know what a lot of people here are talking about so your points of evolution are ridiculous and you should be able to relate and reflect upon what has been lost in the name of kicking a game out the door with a smooth texture packet and plot not translated well from the napkin it was sketched out on the day before it was handed to the voice actor.
jonnymstgt said:
The new offerings have us do RPG in first person perspective. I would be the first one to sign up to play, specially Ultima VII Serpent Isle, in first person perspective.
Then ask for it. THAT might be a worthwhile topic of discussion for you to
create rather than these dull and rather pathetic attempts to stroke your ego
breaking other points. At the very least use your Ultima experience to support your points rather than tossing it out as a discard name that could just as easily be replaced with Hello Kitty Island Adventure for all that it supported the sentence you name dropped it in.
Considering the craptastic plots of most games these days they really should just grab something old and redo it with the latest graphics or engine. Most kids wouldnt' know the difference and most people who did would probably enjoy the new submission. Sierra updated a few of it's old quest titles and I picked each one up when they did, easiest games to ever weasel out of my Mom cause she was a fan too and we gamed with King's Quest together and she wanted another crack at them herself. For that matter When Chronotrigger re-released on PS1 I picked that bitch up to play whether they updated the SNES graphics or not, and that was before games when to hell.
A good game, is a good game, and they have recurring value.
Ask anyone with any experience in sales the lengths retailers go to preserve namebrand recognition, and it's amazing the game industry hasn't caught on. I suppose it's new, and it's big businesses new pretty toy to whore out, but the sooner they catch on the better. Games are getting far too expensive to make and producing far too poor quality in return, what do you think will actually happen if that trend continues and the bubble breaks?
jonnymstgt said:
But I do realize this is gone and I do realize that when I still fire up FO2 there are speed runs that finish the game in half an hour and even FO1 there are speed runs that finish the game in less than 10 mins.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
jonnymstgt said:
So the games are not perfect. They were never meant to be perfect, they were meant to give you some sort of atmosphere and thrill of experiencing such a world.
They were meant to be amazing pieces of craftsmanship. Something the designers took pride in, and which they expected you to get a great many hours of enjoyment out of. They expected you to so enjoy it that you pick up their next offering, and that their company would exist to continue catering to your needs based on the level of their products.
Like any good craftsman.
We don't have many left in America, which is probably why our work ethic is slipping. We largely just produce large amounts debt and shift it around, which is largely why our market just took a collossal dive.
I think many designers way back when probably stille expected to be in business now. Sierra which started in a garage and produced amazing games for a long time, and expanding out to future they probably thought was a hell of a lot brighter than being forcibly bought out by a business who realized that they could make some fast cash turning out some product on this lovingly built up company name. Not exactly a new technique for big business but probably surprised developers who started in thier garage and just were enjoying doing what they were doing and making a profit.
I suppose that's all evolution too, but not necessarily a great one, and one that needs to be recognized for what it is, not defended.
When Soulless whores keep buying and selling company names, franchises, and whatever in order to milk them for a fast turn around like flipping a house in real estate, it needs to be known.
It doesn't need to be defended, which all too often happens by the young idealistic/stupid gaming kiddy who doesn't trust his government, doesn't trust his parents, yet for some reason thinks that Bethesda/Funcom/EA/Interplay is really looking out for his gaming interests.
jonnymstgt said:
I will give FO3 world a chance. For the simple reason that I don't see anyone out there offering a chance to experience something like this.
So the only thing even remotely aproaching a counter point in anything at all you have said in your whole post collection is:
It's crap. Everything is crap. This crap will tide me over till the next crap?
Well I suppose it will keep you off forums posting crap ideas while playing, which is the only redeemable feature of FO3 so far.
jonnymstgt said:
In a world that is now all about MMO's with a bunch of kids running around or having to spend 20 hours a day in order to join a "guild" to experience anything.
You seem bitter.
Having social problems in MMO's perhaps?
I can't imagine why in a text based conversational outlet like an mmo when your so inviting and pleasant to talk to.
I'm fairly well known in a few mmo's, which I found a nice outlet when I had a real bad gig in Africa which left me limping, scarred, and hating the world for awhile. Given the anonymity of the internet though if your not an even mildly engaging person you're unlikely to find that many people willing to even hang out with you to get challenging tasks done. I don't believe there are any mmo's out there that are so challenging to force you to work with someones idea of an idea exchange is to tell you why your opinions are wrong.
Most mmo's, however, suffer from even a worse Big Business mentality than offline games because there is even more money at stake, and the people fronting that money tend to make demands with little understanding of the genre they feel their money entitles them to a say in. Hence games are even more likely to be released early with mounting development costs because the idea that 'every game releases with bugs' is even more prevalent in the mmo community and given that leeway developers keep taking the lunge realeasing earlier and earlier to the point your paying to play in the prolonged beta they call release. Many folks give up on games plagued with bugs and go back to whatever mmo they were playing beforehand where they had friends and could smash bigger stuff, and by the time they ever consider going back to the buggy game to see if it got any better somethign else has released with flashier graphics and they try that instead.
jonnymstgt said:
I am one who bails out and am glad that there are companies who still give a damn about those who want to go at it alone. At their own pace.
If you think Bethesda is one of them then you're clueless given their easy to find history and transparent hype.
jonnymstgt said:
For all of you who hate this game I have no idea what you will be playing. Defintely not FO2, not for the 20th time. The witcher? Or maybe waiting for Fable 2?
I'm waiting for Dragon Age from Bioware, cause Bioware has earned my faith. They have yet to lie to me to my knowledge. They have cultivated me as a customer, and at least until they are forcibly bought out or are forced to change their ways they have my loyalty. They have a proven track record of innovating rather than cloning the same corporate crap everyone else thinks is a safe bet, and the gambles so far have paid off for them. Maybe jsut cause they do take the risk others won't, and that keeps them fresh an new. Eventually perhaps they may produce something that doesnt' work for me, and I may even critisize it when they do, but they've earned my faith and they'd still have it for trying. I'd bet even if I hated the method they used I'd still see all the hallmarks of quality in thier endeavor.
The only other company that has near that level of ability left seems to be Obsidian. Black Isle and Troika produced some great stuff, but the companies had it rough, or got shafted, and I'm glad a lot of them landed in Obsidian. I didn't actually know a lot of them had roots in Black Isle when I first played KOTRO2, which despite it's bugs had a rather compelling story and dialog I thought extremely reminicent of Planescape: Torment. It was as clearcut as Bioware's KOTRO in terms of right and wrong and was far more intellectual and philosophical than I'd expected. It also released far too early but given that they managed what they did in 9 months I was pretty astounded. To find out that they had roots in Black Isle was a revalation to me. Currently their working on an RPG set in the Aliens world - whose gritty Marine tech appealed to me in the old movie and was probably the main reason Halo had a soft spot in my heart when it began. I have no idea when that will come out but if anyone can handle it I think Obsidian can, and that's something to look forward to.
Christ I wish either company had rescued Fallout. But hey, the console crap of FO: POS floundered Interplay enough and led to the franchise falling to Bethesda. Perhaps teh console crap of Bethesda will lead to Fallout falling into more competent hands in the future.
jonnymstgt said:
As an edit, if you happen to notice the moderator Wooz has decided to give me a Strike 2, he already gave me a Strike 1.
Whine whine...
My last question remains. Why Wooz did you decide to give me a second or maybe third strike based on anything I have posted.
Snip whine...
I take it that you have summarized the entire comments I have made with the word "Wordz!".
I think I understand your comment so far.
I personally have no problem repeating myself and being courteous about it, unlike some moderators.
For Christ's sake PM him. Public displays of being wounded only come off if you'rea sympathetic character, you're not. I don't think you're trying to be either are you? So you shouldn't be surprised, and the passive aggressive whine fest is gag worthy. This is not a childish forum. Bring the A game for dealing with the adults, especially if it's not entirely clear you are one yourself. The patronizing crap is also probabably why you had problems making friends online, let it go. You don't come off as clever, you come off someone trying to be and failing, take the high road instead.
