Kotaku profiles No Mutants Allowed and hating Fallout 3

Awesome. Reading now. :p

 

Don't know if this is good press or bad, but is the first time that I read something about us that doesn't make us look like a bunch of.....hmm.....glittering gems of hatred.

 

Just finished reading. Yeah that was a pretty balanced article. I especially liked when the author states flat out that NMA's opinion on Fallout 3 is not wrong.

Kind of disliked them posting Fallout 1 & 2 spoiler images though. Especially since it's articles like this that could get people who have never played the originals to play them. >_>

 

Nice article, I'm glad to see that not all of the media is on Bethesda's payroll. A while back, I was looking for a writer to create a backstory for my player home in New Vegas. The story was going to be related to the Fallout 2 events, namely the destruction of the Enclave Oil Rig, but sadly none of the people who contacted me played any of the classics. All of them just started on with Fallout 3 and they were praising it like it was the messiah of games. Anyway, I hope this article will make more people appreciate what the true Fallout games.

 

Sadly nothing I said was used, guess it was already said to many times by other people that were interviewed.

 

That was a very good read.

Also, bien joué naossano!

 

Kind of uncomfortable with that article.

On one hand, it is nice to have some NMA coverage on Kotaku and some bit of praise here and there. On the other hand :
- Didn't like how the interviewer introduced himself. He didn't say he was from Kotaku, what he intended to do with the interviews, if he had past experience. We were supposed to accept being interviewed without having any prior knowledge about him, while he had some about us.
- I doubt he had all the necessary agreement from the people he quoted. (it is naossano, not naosanno)
- He tries to make NMA looks like some guardians of an old Fort, while there is so much NEW stuff about Fallout 1st gen. The new enhancement, the total conversions, the online servers, the new games using Fallout blueprints, Wasteland 2 etc... If there was only old stuff, i doubt i would be interested in the Fallout communities anymore.
- Entertaining the myth of the NMA communities being a can of anti-new-fans trolls. First, my focus when i come on NMA/Fogen/Beth communities isn't about arguing with new fans. I enjoy the debates, learning about new/old games, lore discovery/lore sharing, some non-game debates, or just pass the time, amongs other things. Second, the Fallout 3 fanboys aren't persecuted when they come here. Only the HOSTILE Fallout fanboys are treated with a bit of cynism, and even there, most of NMA members are civil to a point, before things escalate. Withouth those hostiles people that come here with the clear intend of starting a fight, there wouldn't be any of those things. Third, i am not interested in re-re-re-stating a thousand times how Fo3 sucks. I just did it last year, the first time i played it, to evacuate all those feelings. If topics are brought up again, i rather copy-past or show some links.
- In my opinion, the guy already had a prior opinion about NMA and just looked for quotes to emphasis his own prior opinion, without aknowledging the facts that would counter that opinion.

 

Meh. Pretty much as expected, that article. Just an outside look in.

But I did like that there was a bit of the important argument that indeed, we don´t hate Bethesda´s fallout for not being like the old games. But just because they are shit.

Also boo kotaku, gamergate for life or whatever.

 

Eh, was okay I guess. I don't feel it fully captured the differences in approach between old and new Fallout, nor the appeal of the older games vs. the new. Feels like it was written by someone who hasn't really played the older games that much and is only doing this for the sake of a story (not that that's necessarily true; just how it comes off to me).

 

Explains why he chose the images he did. Probably just Google'd "Fallout" and posted the ones he thought were cool and didn't realize a couple of them are spoilers.

On the other hand, he did know about the low intelligence playthroughs. Hard to find that stuff using web search. Not a very popular feature apparently.

 

I knew this guy was a joker when he posted the interview thread, and the article confirms it.

 

I've def. read some better criticisms of Fallout 3 highlighting the difference between the philosophies of 1/2 and 3. I think the fundamental concept the journalist missed was Bethesda interpreting blackhumor as slapstick humor and the idea that giving homeless people bottles of water could make Pol Pot a nice person. Branching off of that, Fallout 1/2 gave the player the opportunity to be such a bad person that there was NO recourse, try talking your way out of the bounty hunter encounters if you're a child killer. He did a pretty solid job explaining the implausibility of the environment in the opening, but didn't stress it enough.

 

Meh, I didn't like this article. It felt like one of those poorly researched Cracked articles with the author knowing the basics, even has the semblance of knowing something deeper than that, but fails to mention certain details that change everything. He didn't write a word on the reception of New Vegas, the debates about Fallout 2 and Tactics. Also it makes this site look the most extreme there is, even though RPGCodex is a lot more about blindly hating whatever Beth does when discussing the Fallout franchise.

 

Person A: "change is good"

Person B: "progress is better"

Person C: "money is best"

---

NMA Person: "please don't sacrifice quality for the sake of change, progress and money."

 

For 200 years?