Glittering gems of hatred, part II

[Rainstorm]

Have you ever wondered what will happen if Beth makes the game totally awesome?

I mean, with all this negativity around it, im sure that most of you think that it will be similair to POS and in that case - not worth mentioning.

Wouldnt it be hard to bow to Bethsofts awesomeness if the game turns out in the proper manner?

If the game turns out to be good (not gonna happen), I'd have no problem admitting it. I mean, that's what this is all about; getting a good game.

Exactly,all of us are just hoping and wishing for a good follow-up to the game(s) we love,so if Bethesda manages to make a good game,why shouldn't we be able to admit that "this is very good"?
It is only in the minds of those that have no idea about what the FO community is about that the question would ever appear...
How long have you waited for a game,how many times have you seen that game destroyed by console clones that had nothing apart from the name to do with the original?
In short,have you ever been empathetic enough to think about how we feel? (if you're a lover of pancakes,but they disappear completely from the market for some years,you hear that they're on the way,but get cancelled,reappear with water instead of milk and then replace the eggs with mashed white beans,how happy would you be...?)

I do seriously doubt anyone would "bow to Bethsofts awesomness" though...that's just purely fanatical...they would certainly have to release more than one good game before I'd ever even start to curl my back in salutation.(and even if I'm down by the floor with my head,you can bet I won't like some inferiour product)

 

[Bernard Bumner]

We're not perfect, you are completely right, but that wasn't the point of the article anyway, just to try to understand if we are that angry (which is also exaggerated many times by many people) why we are like we are and how that can serve as a lesson to the future. The conclusion could be that we aren't those rabid meanies, at least in historical terms, but a point adding that we aren't perfect either could also be made.

You're right, but many people prefer to stereotype rather than understand.

I'm a big fan of Fallout, and I probably still play one or both games - in their original form - every year or so, but I've never been an active part of the community. I've not spent the energy sustaining that community, which many of you guys obviously have, so I don't have quite the same investment, and therefore the need to defend it. I'm certainly not suggesting that the regulars here necessarily see themselves as wholly virtuous keepers of relics (as the pomp of that last paragraph of mine might suggest), only that it is very easy to caricature them that way, should one choose to take a completely superficial survey of - for instance - a few of the threads here. (Coupled with a big dose of anti-fan prejudice.)

 

[Brother None]

Have you ever wondered what will happen if Beth makes the game totally awesome?

(...)

Wouldnt it be hard to bow to Bethsofts awesomeness if the game turns out in the proper manner?

Hard, sure. Harder than it was to listen to J.E. Sawyer rant and rave? I'm not sure.

Based on history, if the game is totally awesome, we'd be through the roof in fanaticism. I know that sounds unlikely if you look at how we're grumbling now, but opinions change more quickly than you imagine.

Bethesda hasn't actually been burned yet. Nowhere in the article does it say the game will be like Brotherhood of Steel, just that they have a choice to make it so, if they dare. That may not be the prevailing opinion on NMA, but it is the prevailing opinion of people interested in Fallout spread over the net. We're just a bit more suspicious than the average dude.

I just replied there, just for honour, not glory

Leave it. If they're interested in actually getting a fresh perspective they can come over here. They obviously are not, though, so posting on their forums is just feeding the trolls.

About this part in the text I feel you missed something though:

I know I did. The purpose of the article and that paragraph isn't to point out what makes Fallout great, it is to point out that there *are* things that make it great and that sticking to those things as much as you can might be a good idea.

Too many elements make it great to name, though. Especially in one paragraph.

 

[Claw]

Wouldnt it be hard to bow to Bethsofts awesomeness if the game turns out in the proper manner?

It would, since the damned could no longer go to hell because it had frozen over, so we'd be too busy fighting the walking dead.

 

[Goweigus]

Lol nice, well I dunno... I'll at least play it even if it does suck. Of course to get the full understanding of the sucking...ness

I suppose it will have to sustain us either way, assuming it bites I'll at least try and play it as itself, surely it can't get as bad as BOS...

 

[The_Groupthink]

Leave it. If they're interested in actually getting a fresh perspective they can come over here. They obviously are not, though, so posting on their forums is just feeding the trolls.

If we come over here you just ban us for "trolling" when we dare to write that we might have liked Fallout Tactics, or preferred FO2 to FO1, or just disagree with the whole entitlement culture NMA has going for it.

We know you guys are bitter, insular, and can't handle criticism. That's precisely why we think you have nothing worth to add to any discussion about Fallout 3.

These are the opinions of the Qt3 Groupthink. We are not trolling, we just think you are wrong.

 

[Morbus]

If we come over here you just ban us for "trolling" when we dare to write that we might have liked Fallout Tactics, or preferred FO2 to FO1, or just disagree with the whole entitlement culture NMA has going for it.

I liked Tactics, I prefered FO2 to FO1 and I'm still here As far as I can see, you don't even know about the NMA "culture" enough to disagree with it...

It's NEVER a matter of opinions or some other bullshit, it's a matter of KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING, and that's a thing i think is missing a LOT from both sides of the barricade, mainly from "the other one".

2c

 

[Sander]

Banned for blatant trolling (oh, the irony).

Come back when you feel you can discuss this without having to resort to blatant trolling and insulting the entire site, not to mention ignoring every fact and argument that's been posted in this and the previous thread so far. It's not that hard, really.

If you want to discuss our approach and attitude, come up with actual arguments and facts.

 

[Paladin Solo]

think

That must've hurt. I have yet to see anything intelligent come out of your hard coated, shell of a head. But keep trying.

I do love the animosity we get from the sniveling half-wits who think unoriginal thought gives them a right to post stupid shit. If they should get banned for being idiots, then they'll cry about it elsewhere. "It's so stupid, it has to work!" I guess they do care.

Come back when your balls drop, kid. Maybe you'll have used that sponge-like material in your head that we call a brain and absorb some knowledge. Or maybe you'll just neglect it like yesterday's toe-nail clippings as you apparently seem to be doing now.

 

[Briosafreak]

Hey Quarter to Three people always nice to see you guys. How's Rob? Still furry, the old bastard? Cheers now

 

[Brother None]

If we come over here you just ban us for "trolling" when we dare to write that we might have liked Fallout Tactics, or preferred FO2 to FO1, or just disagree with the whole entitlement culture NMA has going for it.

Because nobody on this site liked Tactics or prefers Fallout 2 to 1?

Sure

The reason I said you're not interested in learning is exactly what you just stated; there is no factual base for your opinions. You're very entitled to have those opinions, but there is no real base for them. Ah la, so be it. Your choice.

 

[welsh]

People usually don't get banned here for expressing different opinions, only for trolling, spamming and flaming.

That there is a habit on other forums to perform the exercise of being a whining bitch because you've been banned from NMA for being an asshole, well frankly that's the other forum's problem.

And Paladin Solo- you're not a moderator or staff so stop your trolling or you're banned. Seriously, take the insults out of your recent posts and you don't add a hell of a lot to the conversation. I appreciate your loyalty to this site but, seriously, chill. Consider this a warning.

 

[Rainstorm]

If we come over here you just ban us for "trolling" when we dare to write that we might have liked Fallout Tactics, or preferred FO2 to FO1, or just disagree with the whole entitlement culture NMA has going for it.

I liked Tactics, I prefered FO2 to FO1 and I'm still here As far as I can see, you don't even know about the NMA "culture" enough to disagree with it...

I'm no fan of tactics myself (not the game or the genre),but I do prefer FO2 to FO due to it's size,the story and the lesser humour (which was overdone in FO2) was better in FO though,in FO2 some jokes felt as if they threw them in,to keep to the originals humour,but they threw way to many in.
The more sexual things in FO2 I didn't mind though,fourty years down the road one of two things would happen,either it'd be more decadent or more cultish,religiously fanatic and "dry".(they chose the first road,had they chosen the second it might've turned out just as good)

 

[Rainstorm]

About this part in the text I feel you missed something though:

I know I did. The purpose of the article and that paragraph isn't to point out what makes Fallout great, it is to point out that there *are* things that make it great and that sticking to those things as much as you can might be a good idea.

Too many elements make it great to name, though. Especially in one paragraph.

Yes,I knew why you didn't include everything (it'd be impossible,just mentioning the end movies would need its own article),I just thought that this was something spectacular compared to other games and hence felt it should've been mentioned.
But it's all a matter of preference and the reason I find it spectacular may be that I usually play FO/FO2 (and try it with other games,without success) as some jack of all trades...

 

[Rainstorm]

We know you guys are bitter, insular, and can't handle criticism. That's precisely why we think you have nothing worth to add to any discussion about Fallout 3.

Bitter "we" may be (I can only speak for myself) for the third game not being released in the ninth year since the previous incarnation,wouldn't you be...? (frustrated is a much more appropriate word,though,or maybe burned,due to having hopes rise before)
When a company that -to my knowledge- have not made a proper cRPG before are supposed to release a good FO,I'm very reluctant to believe it to be true.(had it been Troika or Obsidian,I'd still hope,had it been the remaining BIS -with MCA- i'd have a few doubts,but still give it the benefit of a doubt,had it been Pirhana bytes/Arkane studios I'd doubt they could do a good FO,but they have made some good games,I'd even give Silver studios a benefit of a doubt...)
Who're the people "worthy enough" to add to your unbeliavably great discussion about FO3,when fans who has -not in my case,I've only been a fan for about 6-7 years- been around for ten years aren't? (and yes,I do sound sarcastic,for a good reason too,IMHO)

These are the opinions of the Qt3 Groupthink. We are not trolling, we just think you are wrong.

Why not tell us where we're wrong in a matter that we can reply to?
If we're wrong to think that TB is the way to go,tell us why RT is so much better,if it's that we don't like FPP,tell us why it's so much better,how could you ever expect a proper dialougue and discussion if you don't think we can discuss things.(which BTW is a very unconstructive and hypocritical view..."They won't discuss the matter,so I won't listen to them")

 

[Trigger_Happy]

Since this is a discussion about how you're viewed by outsiders, I figure I'd point out a big reason the NMA community is viewed the way it is.

If we come over here you just ban us for "trolling" when we dare to write that we might have liked Fallout Tactics, or preferred FO2 to FO1, or just disagree with the whole entitlement culture NMA has going for it.

We know you guys are bitter, insular, and can't handle criticism. That's precisely why we think you have nothing worth to add to any discussion about Fallout 3.

These are the opinions of the Qt3 Groupthink. We are not trolling, we just think you are wrong.

Bolded is the only part I see as a flame (and it is, don't get me wrong). The rest of that post is attacking opinions, not people. The content of the post itself directly addresses the theme of the original post, so I don't think it's a troll post.

The result? Banned in less than an hour.

That must've hurt. I have yet to see anything intelligent come out of your hard coated, shell of a head. But keep trying.

I do love the animosity we get from the sniveling half-wits who think unoriginal thought gives them a right to post stupid shit. If they should get banned for being idiots, then they'll cry about it elsewhere. "It's so stupid, it has to work!" I guess they do care.

Come back when your balls drop, kid. Maybe you'll have used that sponge-like material in your head that we call a brain and absorb some knowledge. Or maybe you'll just neglect it like yesterday's toe-nail clippings as you apparently seem to be doing now.

Bolded above are flames from an established member of your community. Result? Nothing public.

While I understand giving established people some amount of leeway, and understand the community defense response, saying

People usually don't get banned here for expressing different opinions, only for trolling, spamming and flaming.

comes across as a pretty obvious double standard.

 

[Brother None]

The content of the post itself directly addresses the theme of the original post, so I don't think it's a troll post.

You don't because you don't understand the background. QTT has an established history of openly hating our community. When a member of theirs expressely registers under an obvious troll handle just to tell us they're much better than us...that's a troll. That's not about the amount of flames, it's about the intent of registering. His intent wasn't to start a discussion, it wasn't to inform us of their opinion, since we already know, it was to piss people off.

How is that not a troll?

Bolded above are flames from an established member of your community. Result? Nothing public.

"Nothing public?" Are you serious?

And Paladin Solo- you're not a moderator or staff so stop your trolling or you're banned.

...Telling him to stop trolling or he will be banned isn't a public response to his flames?

If your point is to make an even-handed point, you're being dangerously selective.

 

[Trigger_Happy]

I honestly didn't catch Welsh's reponse, my mistake.

I still don't think the "The_Groupthink"s post was trollworthy enough to be banned. I somewhat agree with the last line of his post, where he indicates his impression that folks are banned for disagreeing.

I know more about the history of this site than it may seem, I've seen plenty of people come in here spewing vitriol and being justly banned. I've also seen what seems to be overreaction, and I've seen a much more severe response for people who disagree with the majority opinion. It's somewhat understandable given all the trolls that do sign up here. On the other hand, it seems that not many people here realize just how heavy handed it can be, and how bad it looks from the outside.

 

[Brother None]

It's somewhat understandable given all the trolls that do sign up here. On the other hand, it seems that not many people here realize just how heavy handed it can be, and how bad it looks from the outside.

"Heavy handed" and "strict" are not problems, though. I have no problem with us being more strict than the average site, and if Mr Groupthink was the kind of troll other people would accept, ah lah, but we don't.

We try not to ban for opinions. However, it's not our fault if, after explaining to someone how he is wrong, that person bursts into flames, Hitler-facsimilès and general derogatories remarks about every community member and their mother.

Rosh, perhaps, banned people with less than enough cause but a stupid opinion. It's not a habit we planned to keep, though.

 

[Rainstorm]

I still don't think the "The_Groupthink"s post was trollworthy enough to be banned. I somewhat agree with the last line of his post, where he indicates his impression that folks are banned for disagreeing.

I'm not banned...and I did act like a total ass when I made a comeback with only 5 posts ever made...(sure I didn't scream about FO,but I did do it towards admins about how wrong they were about the forumrules...)

Even if I've been a member for quite a while I doubt anyone here saw me as a vital part of the community...and doubt anyone remembers me from BIS...(I most likely didn't even call myself Rainstorm there,since IIRC I joined it before the beta trial of Elemental saga came around,so I'm fairly sure I called myself RiotSquad at the Iplay forum...)

For someone that hangs around a forum for a long time,trolls are easy to spot and if you're an admin it'll be even easier...since you also can check IP numbers.
It's all a moot point though,the admins always have the final say...