"My precious" - GFW on fans, industry and media

Has Bethesda "chilled out" their smear campaign?

Has the gaming media "chilled out" their excessive overuse of the exact same lies that Pete has been spreading?

*cough * sellouts *cough*


I don't really think we should continue to care in the slightest about what image they attempt to foist upon us.

The stupid people who cannot see through the lies, are the same people who are gonna buy this pos for the xbox, and I really couldn't care less what they think of a group of legitimate RPG fans who have been playing the best games ever made since the console kiddies were in diapers.

Why not embrace our designation as the hardass, and underappreciated fans of the best RPG ever?

We shouldn't try to out-lie Bethesda, and their deep pocketted PR dept, by being politically correct in an attempt to make ourselves look "nice" and "happy" for people who don't really give a shit about us.

That would make us as SPINELESS as the media outlets who sold their souls to hype this travesty of a spin-off.


BE PROUD OF YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE A DISSENTING OPINION!
 
Brother None said:
Considering this gaming magazine went as far as to ask me for my thoughts, rather than just giving Bethesda the space to rant, I think they deserve more than that.
True. However, the way the article is presented, it still comes across as mostly a pro-Bethesda, anti-Fallout fan piece. Perhaps I'm looking at it wrong, but all I really see is "yeah, there are some moderate voices in the realm of Fallout fandom, but all discussions inevitably deteriorate into irrational Bethesda-bashing." Nevermind that Bethesda-bashing can be quite rational and well-informed (not that it always is, of course). They also seem to value the "wait and see" philosophy.
 
There is no such thing as "objective journalism" when money is involved in any way. Most journalists are not open-minded individuals. They approach articles and interviews with preconcieved notions and edit them in a way that will support those notions. No matter if those notions are their own or their bosses', end result is the same. A one-sided story.
 
whirlingdervish said:
BE PROUD OF YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE A DISSENTING OPINION!

So am I. I feel no compulsion to lower myself to their level, nor do I see how insulting people is the best way to promulgate my opinion. Might just be me, tho'
 
does sugercoating our disgust with them serve any meaningful purpose?


It seems to me that we could say pretty much anything about them, even good things, and they'd still try to bury us under their mountain of bullshit PR.
This would probably be due to the facts that they don't feel any sort of loyalty to us, and our opinion of what makes a good fallout game is quite a bit different and more informed than theirs.

Our very existence as a largely informed (and thus bullshit resistant) community with legit expectations for this game, seems to rub them the wrong way.
From the start, they've made it perfectly clear that even if we were nice to them and heaped praise upon their bloom, they still wouldn't make a good fallout game that we would want to buy.


What do we have to gain by treating them with the respect that they have not earned?

and

What do we have to lose, now that they've managed to skullfuck the last remaining true/solid/oldskewl/good RPG?
 
Re: "My precious" - GFW on fans, industry and medi

Brother None said:
No matter how great that game is, they're screwed. The Fallout guys are nuts."
People who think Oblivion is God's gift to the RPG genre will turn out in droves to buy Fallout 3. The rest of us will keep waiting for a real Fallout game. Bethesda is hardly "screwed".

FO3 will probably receive glowing (no pun intended), over-the-top, positive reviews from almost every single mainstream media outlet, much like Bioshock and Halo 3. No one should feel bad for Bethesda.

This isn't like Duke Nukem Forever where there's no possible way the game can live up to the hype (and the endless delays). In that sense, 3D Realms is truly screwed. Bethesda, not so much.
 
I feel saddened that all that renowned game developers took from the last 10 years is that "the fans want a Xerox copy of Fallout".

That is such a giveaway of a mediocre mind.

Fallout could be expanded on in so many ways using today's technology, and I don't mean graphically. I mean, using the memory and the CPU power. Things such as :

* replacing the fake map with a large, continuous world (random encounters and finds really ARE random !), but eliminating pointless wandering through UI that always reminds you where the surrounding known cities are.
* vehicles that actually MOVE AROUND.
* more emergent behavior, people with different goals moving around and creating unpredictable encounters.
* Game mechanics that are open and honest. If there's an evil force that's going to consume the player's colony in 80 days, then it actually DOES exist, constantly moving along the giant game world toward its goal. In other words, the complete opposite to the mentality that creates games with a grappling hook only to allow you to use it in "grappling hook spots" in spite of common sense.

That to me would be an evolution.

Bethesda's FO3, judging from the previews, is the same old gaming paradigms wrapped in normal mapping. "Oh no, the player's leaving the vault !" yell the guards as they continue standing there. Welcome to 1994.
 
Brother None said:
Considering this gaming magazine went as far as to ask me for my thoughts, rather than just giving Bethesda the space to rant, I think they deserve more than that.

Feel misrepresented as much as you want, but don't be so openly offensive about it. Chill the fuck out!

The whole "A casual observer might have believed that the resurrection of a beloved world by a dedicated, respected RPG developer would be a good thing. But the relationship between Bethesda and the fan community got off to a bad start, to say that least. " came off as a slanted argument, to me. Respected by whom? Dedicated to what? The only opinions I had on Fallout 3 when I first heard the news it was in Bethesda's hands was "man I hope they don't make this into a post-apocalyptic Morrowind." Then the small, unconfirmed worries turned into a major shitpile of spite as more and more information was released on how Bethesda is disregarding the canon of Fallout 1 and 2, and making their own version of it, while at the same time, saying we're nuts for expecting better. Not-to-mention the huge disappointment that Oblivion was (Oblivion may not be Fallout 3, but it's still part of Bethesda's track record). So if that means Bethesda is respected and dedicated, then I'm Mother Teresa. Instead of trying to understand how some of the more harshly verbose users felt about the news, they reasoned it as madness. They make it seem like the one side that is more spiteful than the other are just a bunch of opinionated monkies having a rage of shit-tossing. I don't see how someone can claim that side should be rational when their points are just as valid as those who are less colourful with their choice of words. But yeah, if you want to go searching for one-sentence-hate-posts, you're not going to have a hard time. I'm not arguing there aren't members here who have nothing but those types of posts, but I've seen a fair share of spiteful members who raise very good points that seem to be ignored because people can't help but cry at the sight of words like 'shit' and 'fuck'. If that makes me Golem just because I know what I want out of a product instead of having my opinion fed to me from others, then so be it.
 
Seto said:
Hmmm... All the stuff around F3 made me think: So... How is the Wasteland 2 doing? :-)

Possibly the Snake Squeezins crew will do a vivisection on me a'la Event Horizon, but anyways, I'm really looking forward to this game and blowing things up.
 
Kyuu said:
Brother None said:
Considering this gaming magazine went as far as to ask me for my thoughts, rather than just giving Bethesda the space to rant, I think they deserve more than that.
True. However, the way the article is presented, it still comes across as mostly a pro-Bethesda, anti-Fallout fan piece. Perhaps I'm looking at it wrong, but all I really see is "yeah, there are some moderate voices in the realm of Fallout fandom, but all discussions inevitably deteriorate into irrational Bethesda-bashing." Nevermind that Bethesda-bashing can be quite rational and well-informed (not that it always is, of course). They also seem to value the "wait and see" philosophy.
Exactly. Frankly, these guys are just pretending to be nice. One of them came here pretending to want to be friendly, while spreading lies about us wanting an expansion for Fallout 2 at the same time.
Similarly, they invited Brother None, but cut out everything that could put us in good light.
These are working methods of tabloid press.
 
whirlingdervish said:
What do we have to gain by treating them with the respect that they have not earned?

I'm not sure how you were raised, but where I come from, people don't need to "earn" something to not get insulted. I try never to insult people, it rarely serves any purpose.

I don't like equating abrasiveness with differentness. You don't need to put an exclamation mark to your aberrant opinion by saying fuck a lot, it's simply not necessary. You don't need to badger and humiliate a poster just because his opinion is different, it serves no purpose.

You have a different opinion? You disagree with these jokers? Fine, then say so, but to feel that you need to be insulting simply to get your point across is a sign of weakness, to feel you need to bully someone to get him to agree with you is nothing but lack of empowerment. That the game you want to play? Fine, but don't expect to "win", either way.

PS: and yes, Sorrow, I'm not completely happy about the way they used my quotes, but compare it to PC World's Matt Peckham, or Gamespy's Delsyn. Maybe this guy went in with an agenda to dehumanize us, which seems to be so popular, but at least he gave us a chance to speak. And that's a step up.
 
Brother None said:
I'm not sure how you were raised, but where I come from, people don't need to "earn" something to not get insulted.

...

You don't need to put an exclamation mark to your aberrant opinion by saying fuck a lot, it's simply not necessary.

but to feel that you need to be insulting simply to get your point across is a sign of weakness, to feel you need to bully someone to get him to agree with you is nothing but lack of empowerment. That the game you want to play? Fine, but don't expect to "win", either way.

True, but I find, in most cases, the word 'fuck', and others like it, shouldn't be intentionally censored out just to play the nice game. Overuse is tiresome and annoying, I'll admit, but I feel most of us outspoken members use harsh language not because we feel we have to get an impassioned point across, but because we're just not as stoic with our choice of words as other members.

Then again, I grew up in a dirt-poor village for the first eight years of my life, so I guess I'm used to it.

*cough* Golem, Golem *cough*
 
Golem is a statue, you're thinking more Gollem, or Gollum, whatever.

And saying "fuck" a lot is not the same as being intentionally insulting.
 
Brother None said:
PS: and yes, Sorrow, I'm not completely happy about the way they used my quotes, but compare it to PC World's Matt Peckham, or Gamespy's Delsyn. Maybe this guy went in with an agenda to dehumanize us, which seems to be so popular, but at least he gave us a chance to speak. And that's a step up.
I wouldn't call it a step up. To me, it's a step down - misrepresenting us, while pretending to be decent journalists.
It's simply all about credibility - they write an article with a presumption. Then they make an interview for added credibility and to show their "fairness", while removing everything that wouldn't fit their presumption.
 
Sorrow said:
I wouldn't call it a step up. To me, it's a step down - misrepresenting us, while pretending to be decent journalists.
It's simply all about credibility - they write an article with a presumption. Then they make an interview for added credibility and to show their "fairness", while removing everything that wouldn't fit their presumption.

Nowhere in the article itself is it mentioned that my quotes are from a Q&A, he just tags them as clarification or "said later". While that's not the height of journalistic habits either, you can't fairly claim he uses my name to add credibility to the article, either.
 
Brother None said:
Golem is a statue, you're thinking more Gollem, or Gollum, whatever.

Oye, I have a bad habit of leaving the second 'l' out.

Brother None said:
And saying "fuck" a lot is not the same as being intentionally insulting.

I insult those who I feel deserve to be insulted. If I feel someone is being rambunctious in a trollish way, I don't really care what level of respect that person think he or she deserves or if they think their opinions are more valid arguments than others'. You may feel it's overboard to insult someone, I feel it's irrelevant either way. They're not going to listen to reason so why attempt to reason with them? You may feel it's a wasted effort to insult them, but I feel it's just another form of communication to a less courteous degree, not-to-mention, a wasted effort to attempt to reason with someone who isn't reasonable. I don't see how that makes you more right than I, or me more right than you, it's just how I communicate. I don't feel I need to insult them, it's just what happens when I feel a rabblerouser is about. Either way, I don't resort to insults if I feel the argument is valid or the other side is taking things into consideration or if I'm wrong and they're right. Then again, I'm not saying I'm some omniscient being as to know when it is appropriate to insult someone or not. I just don't see how insults are automatically a concession of defeat. Some insults may be vulgar, while others coated with propriety, sure, but it can still carry a point.
 
It does seem like he used your interview as a tool to make us look worse. Sure, he did more than others have in the past, but look what happened to some of the points and arguments that you made. They're the same ones that the gaming press has largely been conveniently ignoring every time they mention us. I don't think he's any different from them. As janjetina said, Julian very likely went into the interview already knowing how his article was going to turn out.

I know I'm making a lot of assumptions, but aren't I entitled to? I know I'm not the only cynical one here. Either we're all suffering from groupthink, or we're on to something.
 
welsh said:
Damn, this is so Republican! You don't like the bad response to your product, so you slam the response

It's called "Character Assassination", if someone speaks out against what you say, you attack them personally rather than debate the issue. Its a form of control commonly used in cults to to silience those who speak out against the wacko leader.

Also used by some NMAers to say "Bethsaidia is shit" rather we should be saying "the potenial for Fallout 3 to be shit is quite high" ;)
 
A party of art-lovers walk into a museum. Coincidentally, this museum is called "Fallout".

The observers watch them walk in, while they eat their fried chicken leaning against the hood of their Ford mustangs. Three hours pass, the entire group leaves the museum absolutely shocked, crying, and touched.

The observers are absolutely amazed, and walk up to the so called now "Fallout fans" and ask them - wow, what is so amazing that you all walked out in tears? The fans so hopelessly entranced in the beauty can only point towards the museum.

The observers casually walk over to the museum, but are stopped at the gate by a guard, demanding a $60.00 fee to enter.

Carefully looking at the outside of the museum, they cannot tell what the general appeal is. The building looks all worn down, old, and as if it would collapse at any moment. Aesthetically, it is a very ugly building. Thinking to themselves, well if the building is so ugly outside, and the price for the entry is so high, there must be some very bad art inside of this museum. They simply shrug and get into the mustangs and drive home.

The next day, the group return to the same casual spot, and see a second museum called Fallout II. The same group of fans from the previous museum, once again walk into an apparently absolutely ugly building, only to return outside several hours later, holding themselves.

The observers this time, a little more curious begin to ask the person in the ticket booth exactly what they display within this museum. He says that one cannot be told what Fallout is, they must experience it for themselves. The observers look between themselves and try to compile enough money to pay for the tickets into the museum, and when they enter; they only see blank walls. There is no art at all in here, they only see bare walls. They get slightly angered and leave the museum, feeling cheated - thinking those pesky Fallout 'fans' simply conned them out of their money.

Then, one of the observers has a great idea. Todd says to the rest, hey guys; they conned us out of our money, by pretending to like an absolutely bare museum. What if we opened our own "Fallout" museum and did the same. We could advertise it even better than they did, and we could attract a whole bunch of people. No refunds!

The group cheered in agreement, and the next day; they began construction of the museum "Fallout III".

Now, the Fallout fans had returned once again and were overlooking the construction of this new museum. Several of them immediately began to shout in anger. "How dare they try to mimic the beauty that is Fallout? Have they no shame?" While others tried to talk rationally with the creators of the new museum.

The leader comes up to the construction manager and says: "Hey, what are you doing here, fellow?"

"Oh, we're building Fallout 3." He says. "It's going to be something absolutely revolutionary, a Fallout the likes of which you have never seen before."

The Fallout group, now obviously disillusioned, returns to the first and second museums, only to realize that they have gone out of business and closed down. Disappointed, they return home and await the construction of the new, third museum.

Several months pass, and the third museum opens up for business. They return, and pay their fees, and enter. Walking inside, they see four plainly painted white walls, with no art at all.

"What is this debauchery?" They exclaim. "What exactly are you running here?"

The group becomes very angry that the founders of this third museum would completely mock the art style of the first two.

Smiling, the leader of the observer group approaches the leader of the Fallout group. "You have tricked us once before with your bare walls in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, but now we have pulled the cloak over your faces."

Then, the leader says to the other one; "You fool, you understand nothing. The four plain walls in the first museums are only the waiting room. There was a door right there, waiting for you to open it. If only you had looked at it with a wider perspective and seen beyond the ugly building and empty walls, would you have found the great artworks that lay within."

With that, the entire group leaves the building.

It begins to rain, and a large line forms around the Fallout 3 museum. Todd tries to comfort the leader, but now they are completely ashamed. Deciding not to swallow their shame, they took an aggressive stance. Using the money that the museum was generating, the observer group began paying off people and advertising madly. They posted up amazing claims everywhere they could, in the newspaper, in buses, in trains, on tv, on the radio.

They spent their entire fortune trying to convince the world that their museum contained something more than four plain white painted bare walls. In the end, they all ended up poor, ashamed, and angry.

And they leaned against their mustangs once more, and watched the group of Fallout fans, dig through the ruins of their bankrupt museums.
 
Back
Top