JeffGreen said:
You guys (to speak in broad generalizations) have what seems almost like a sense of entitlement about what the game should be---and please don't mistake that for a criticism. I'm just trying to grasp the sense of outrage, and I can't fully do it. I get that it's gotta be frustrating to you guys to see a franchise you love apparently being--in your eyes--sh*t upon, but what I equally fail to see, so far, is any sense of either hope or patience whatsoever that *maybe*, just maybe, this might not be the clusterf**k everybody thinks it is.
>8 some snippage 8<
I wish to direct your eyes, for a moment, to the Master of Orion series. Star Lords, Master of Orion, and Master of Orion 2 are all excellent games, in essence, "the 'Wasteland, Fallout, and Fallout 2' of the 4X genre", imho. Master of Orion 3 came around, and the forums back then were as divided as the FO forums... And back then, I was on the "pro-change" side. I supported Infogrames' changes of Microprose's 'baby'.
But halfway through... even *I* could see how the changes were destroying and dismantling the series. Try as I might to speak positively of the game, I became more and more disallusioned upon seeing the cuts of the MoO equivalents of "groin shots" (the Mrrshan, and other beloved races), "Intelligence for dialogue" (micromanagement), turn-based gameplay, and so on, and instead, getting, "the Fatman" (the new races), "toilet drinking" (macromanagement), and FPP (voxels).
I want to quote wikipedia about "Sequels", particularly where MoO3 failed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel#Computer_and_video_games
and I quote this in particular, "However, despite this, there are examples of game sequels that are interpreted as inferior to the original or earlier sequels. This could be because of a change in concept or gameplay, an inability to integrate new technology effectively, or simply poor production values. Master of Orion III is one notable example that seems to suffer from all three."
And sadly, from what I've seen, FO3 is following the same footsteps of MoO3... but with one exception: Infogrames considered what the fans had to say, but in a half-hearted manner... Bethesda is shutting the fans out altogether.
I preordered MoO3 (back in 2003)... and I finally finished my first game yesterday. I don't want to wait another four years, so I forget the hype, and everything wrong with it, to be able to force myself to play it with a smidgeon of enjoyment. (And that's all I got out of MoO3... was just a smidgeon of enjoyment). I don't want to have to read another thread of "How to enjoy MoO3 to it's fullest", and find out the thread reads, "Don't try to play it the way you played MoO2... don't try to play it from a micromanaging standpoint, because if you do, you'll drive yourself crazy and hate the game... don't try to take too much control, because that's not how the game is supposed to be played... don't think about the promises about ethoses, and religions, and magnate civilizations, because they couldn't come through with those, and only partially on the magnate civilizations... let your viceroys play for you, and you'll enjoy the game just fine".
My 'hostility' as you put it, but rather, my outspoken disappointment and disapproval, comes from the fact that the MoO franchise is fubared because of MoO3... and Bethesda is heading that way with FO3. Every move made by Infogrames is seemingly being paralleled by Bethesda. And because of that, it makes me want to imitate Gilbert Gottfried, and yell out, "YOU FOOL!".
The hostility is so heavy, and the lack of generosity towards them so profound, that if I were them I can't imagine I'd take you seriously either. It's one thing to love a game and be looking forward to a followup. It's another to be so passionate about it that you can't see that just because your vision doesn't match theirs that they aren't complete douchebags who don't understand the franchise and deserve to be burned at the stake.
No, they don't deserve to be burned at the stake... but neither does the gameplay that the storyline of Fallout uses, need to be either. Sadly, I think that's a point that both Bethesda and a handful of spiteful fans, have missed.
I don't want to see the genius of Fallout be lost to what's "innovative", what's "immersive", and "what sells to the masses". It'd be akin to Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa... and then his protege taking up the brush, repainting it something like Picasso's, and saying, "This is my vision of what the Mona Lisa should look like... what Da Vinci would have done, if palette knives were invented in his time". Sure, a Picasso is a good piece of artwork... but it's no Da Vinci, and should not be confused with one.
Similarly, it also doesn't mean that those of us in the press who are looking at VERY early versions and writing favorable comments think this is going to be the greatest game EVAR, or, hell, even GOOD. It's one thing to say "hey this early stuff this company is doing is pretty cool!" and another once we have the real game in our hands. As I said on the other thread, writing previews is a VERY tricky game---criticizing totally unfinished code is like previewing a movie where the actors are still in front of a blue screen--you have no real idea what the final product will be like. We err on the side of being positive because, in the short run, it's just more fair, especially if the early stuff piques our interest.
It's fine and dandy to say, "this early stuff looks cool"... but is it that hard to say, "As cool as it looks, this early stuff is taken in a completely different direction than the original Fallouts, although, there is still time for things to change"?
Sometimes, it's pretty obvious when certain reviewers are merely there to brownnose said company... look at IGN's review on MoO3... an "outstanding" 9.2 (while the reader average gave it a 7.0 and the press average was a 6.6... and imho, while it looks beautiful, playing it is about as fun as talking to an obnoxious cousin who won't shut up). So, yeah, I'm leery about any journalist who can only talk about "this good thing" or "that good thing"... if there are no "bad things" mentioned to balance it out, to me, that tells me, 1.) the journalist's nose is so far up a company's butt they can smell what the CEO had for lunch or 2.) it has achieved the holy grail of gaming perfection.
Sure, some things might be unfinished... but there are some things that, you know in the back of your mind, don't match up right. Let's take Intelligence, for example. The previous two games made a note that an 'intellectually challenged person' would speak in unintelligible grunts, and a 'intellectually gifted person' would speak verbosely with uncommon words. Now, we can have idiots that are capable of remembering, let alone actually pronouncing, "hydroelectric magnetosphere regulator"... the 'thingie', as Harold so elequently put it. To lavish praise upon a feature, such as having Oblivion-like dialogue trees, but ignoring any negative aspects associated with it, imho, is intellectually dishonest. But then again, so is lavishing hate upon a feature, without giving it any due credit.
But, like I also said in the other thread, if the end game ends up sucking, if the combat is ridiculous, if dialog doesn't play any meaningful part, if the humor is offbase or dumb--whatever--Fallout 3 will get the bad review it would deserve.
Well, that's good... but what about expressing current concerns? IGN, for example, had no qualms making note, in their E3 previews, of how much Superman 64 could've sucked horribly, but then, *still* came out saying, "In spite of all this, it still looks good". And then when it finally was released, they don't hold back, even unto the point of saying some features make sense "if your [sic] insane". But they still give credit where credit is due... namely the quality of the sound effects.
Sadly, though, I've noticed the more time goes on, the less I see anyone saying anything negative of anything. It's all positive. Had Superman 64 had been Superman Wii, I'm sure we would've never heard about the shoddy graphics, the clipping, the crappy gameplay, and so on... only until after the game is released.
But for now, it's just way too early to tell. All that all of us are doing--including those of us in the press--are speculating. None of us really know much about anything yet.
A year prior, was it too early to mention MoO3's 'autopilot' viceroy-AI? Superman's 'Kryptonite fog'? Hardly so. I don't see why it's too early for Fallout 3.
You can't retro-justify hostile remarks. That was exactly my problem with Gamespy justifying remarks made by Delsyn based on the replies it got.
