OXM article excerpts

Black said:
Bodybag said:
Ah, you believe beth's interaction after "SMs are too dumb to talk durr", ohkay.

You seem so much more reasonable and accurate, I guess I should believe you after all.

And hey, lemme ask you a question. If you'd like to advertise your game, say it has awesomsauce dialogue- would you show the screenshot with awesome dialogue or crappy yes/no dialogue?

Well, I guess that would have to depend! One factor I would have to consider is that if my awesomesauce dialogue really only bears fruit in story-specific coversations I'd be a little weary about just throwing that out ahead of less sensitive material. Gamers are a finicky group, and they typically have adverse reactions to spoilers.

Also, you have to consider context. Some of the most awesomesauce conversation junctures might be a little awkward to capture in a single frame; the reader has absolutely no frame of reference, and while she can appreciate the denisty of the dialogue and perhaps the sheer number of typed characters on the screen, the actual weight of the dialogue would be comprimised. So there's that.

Is it SOP for RPGs to release screens that show anything but generic dialogue 6 months ahead of release? That's not a rhetorical question, you have me genuinely curious.
 
BN,
I actually forgot to scan the image on the TOC with someone in PA shooting up a feral ghoul. I'll try to get that to you later, gotta help my friend film some remake scenes from "The Wizard"
 
Also,

Guns like the Chinese Assault Rifle or Fallout's signature 10mm sub-machine gun wear out over time; as a weapon degenerates, its rate of fire slows and it loses accuracy.

... because everyone loved that design in System Shock 2 and have been clamoring for more of where that came from !
 
For everyone's information, I'm removing the scans now.

Bodybag said:
Yeah, who could possibly blame you for leaping to such an obvious, logical conclusion?

You're flipping things upside down here.

The NMA Fallout 3 preview outlines that there are dialogues with plenty of multiple options and there is also branching dialogue. This is not a point of contention, I've seen it with my own two eyes and I trust my two eyes. I hope you do too. I hope others here do too, and I agree with you that people are overreacting to a simple screen, when we know there are dialogues with more options (4-5) of significance (telling Mr Burke he should get out of town or choosing to listen to his proposition I can only imagine is a fairly significant choice).

That doesn't mean it's just stupid to have the first dialogue shot released be a simple yes/no bit of dialogue. You can jump in to defend Bethesda, as you do, but to do so you have to jump to some conclusions about their motives. Which is exactly what the people reacting negatively are also doing, but their jumping is negative, yours is positive. It's still jumping.

Both methods are fairly stupid. We've already explained plenty of times that dialogue is better than this shot, but that doesn't mean this shot isn't a stupid one to release. React to it as you will. I personally find it eminently ignorable.
 
Bodybag said:
Gamers are a finicky group, and they typically have adverse reactions to spoilers.
Oh, bullshit. Unless you're spoiling the one major plot twist in the game, there will be no adverse reactions.
Quite the opposite, small pieces of non-trivial information - i.e. spoilers - can greatly increase interest in the game, provided the information is interesting. If your game is cliché and boring, you may want to keep that secret.


Also, you have to consider context. Some of the most awesomesauce conversation junctures might be a little awkward to capture in a single frame
That's just more nonsense. I added "just more" to emphasize how much nonsense you're talking.
I'm not saying context isn't often required to understand dialogue, but I can't think of a single example supporting your claim. Even if a single frame can't show the dialogue in context, and even if I simply presume that there may be a piece of dialogue that would look awkward out of context, a game with a reasonable amount of dialogue should contain some decent examples that can represent the style and quality of the game's dialogue in a single frame.
And anyone with a brain - damn, this my standard phrase for "anyone who matters" but now I realize I may be excluding a significant portion of Bethesda's target audience, thus reinforcing your point - is aware that he's seeing a small excerpt out of context. It could in fact be very intriguing to wonder about the context of that particular dialogue.
 
Regarding spoilers:
Dialogue doesn't even have to be in final game - it's about showing off the writing skills of dialogue writers and general level of game dialogues, not about spoiling.
 
Please, guys, don't discuss this spoiler point seriously.

Bethesda has spoiled:
- The fact that you can take Mr Burke's quests or threaten him
- The fact that you then blow up Megaton

Seriously. If they're willing to spoil on that level, then "they can't show dialogue because of spoilers" becomes a total non-argument.
 
Brother None said:
So why not allow repeat offenders to simply bypass that section instead of making them create a save themselves at that point?

Who says they won't?

I'm sure I remember a developer saying that there was going to be nothing to stop players creating a save just before finalising character creation.
To me that implies that they won't just let you skip to a character sheet instead of playing the whole introductory segment.
 
Brother None said:
Please, guys, don't discuss this spoiler point seriously.

Bethesda has spoiled:
- The fact that you can take Mr Burke's quests or threaten him
- The fact that you then blow up Megaton

Seriously. If they're willing to spoil on that level, then "they can't show dialogue because of spoilers" becomes a total non-argument.

This is kind of funny, though. They've been silent for so long about even the most insignificant details about the game, but when they spill their beans, they spill even more then they should really do. Oo
 
Hey, BN, here's a quote from Gstaff on the subject:

Gstaff said:
Also, Todd let me know we'll eventually be releasing full shots of dialogue, but screens full of text make for bad magazine shots :)

Which is a better explaination than I was offering, but I was asked specifically about my awesomesauce dialog game. It doesn't sound like showcasing the dialogue was a such priority here after all, despite what the editor threw under the shreenshot.

And if it makes you more comfortable to pidgeonhole me as a Bethesda defender I'll play along, but in the interests of full disclosure I should tell you I've only played (and never finished)Oblivion, and that has a minimal bearing on why I'm interested in Fallout 3.

Claw said:
That's just more nonsense. I added "just more" to emphasize how much nonsense you're talking

So not much more, or a whole lot more, simply "just more". Gotcha. I'm glad you went ahead and quantified that instead of taking the high road and being clever, because you would've likely left me in a state of total discombobulation.
 
Bodybag said:
Which is a better explaination than I was offering, but I was asked specifically about my awesomesauce dialog game. It doesn't sound like showcasing the dialogue was a such priority here after all, despite what the editor threw under the shreenshot.

Yes, and that's fine. And Gstaff's explanation is fine. But don't pretend that when someone sees that screenshot, rolls his eyes and goes "oh yeah, great dialogue, Bethesda", he's being silly. It's a stupid screenshot, pure and simple.

Bodybag said:
And if it makes you more comfortable to pidgeonhole me as a Bethesda defender I'll play along, but in the interests of full disclosure I should tell you I've only played (and never finished)Oblivion, and that has a minimal bearing on why I'm interested in Fallout 3.

I think I remember you from the Bethesda forums. I don't think those are pleasant memories.
 
Brother None said:
Yes, and that's fine. And Gstaff's explanation is fine. But don't pretend that when someone sees that screenshot, rolls his eyes and goes "oh yeah, great dialogue, Bethesda", he's being silly.

Yeah, but that's not what's being said. I can hunt down quotes if you really want to tit-for-tat about it, but this was the one that caught my eye:

Apparently, they thought these dialogue options were a primo example of Fallout 3 dialogue. And that's bad.

I don't think showcasing the dialogue was really the goal here. I got no beef with you criticizing them for not showing more, but when you frame your argument like this you seem to be ignoring your own advice:

You can jump in to defend Bethesda, as you do, but to do so you have to jump to some conclusions about their motives. Which is exactly what the people reacting negatively are also doing


It's a stupid screenshot, pure and simple.

What can I say? I disagree. I think it's a good example of NPC detail, and the graphics in general. It IS an Xbox mag, after all.

I think I remember you from the Bethesda forums. I don't think those are pleasant memories.

Because we sometimes disagreed?
 
Bodybag said:
And if it makes you more comfortable to pidgeonhole me as a Bethesda defender I'll play along
:roll:

bodybag from TES? You're the guy who spends nearly every post trying to deconstruct critical arguments against Bethesda? Why would anyone pigeonhole in such a ridiculous role? It's obviously just a coincidence.

I for one like your brutal honesty and raw argumentation, like your conjecture that any more complex interaction would have spoiled something. Rock-solid. You have to appreciate that kind of debater, even if you disagree.
 
What can I say? I disagree. I think it's a good example of NPC detail, and the graphics in general. It IS an Xbox mag, after all.

It's silly in combination with the caption about awesome dialogue.
 
Bodybag said:
I don't think showcasing the dialogue was really the goal here. I got no beef with you criticizing them for not showing more

One of the most prominent requests for screenshots has been "a screenshot of dialogue", then they come up with this.

If they really wanted to show character details, then well idea. Duh.

They pasted in dialogue, with the comment "every conversation has multiple outcomes" (and don't start "Bethesda has no saw over OXM comments. It doesn't work that way). They get burned because it's stupid dialogue. Again, that's their PR, their decision on what screenshot to show. Rather than showing stupid dialogue, you don't think it would've been better to show just a face?

Bodybag said:
Because we sometimes disagreed?

No, I believe you were one of those prominent pro-Bethesda trolls that the moderators somehow always forgot to give warnings for blatant trolling.

Be glad we don't operate by the same kind of rules of "it's ok as long as you're trolling for the right side" here.

But apropos, this is a cross-forum topic, and that's not allowed by our rules. Sorry.
 
Dialog: Could be heads and tails above that standard, it could be the int 3 and under club dialog, just so the brick kiddies can still understand themselves (Instead of a total re-write, reduce the amount of options there are for speaking.)

At least it's not the length of a Steven Segal movie title max.

Faces are pretty, personally I don't care if it's obscenely pretty, that's personal opinion I'll admit, I can deal with some pixelation or not so fluid movement if the game's story is decent enough.

I cannot forgive some of the creative license they've taken with the Fallout series mind you, the whole point of Fallout was to be different, not a first person perspective, and definitely not a shooter like everything else of the time.

The muties look terrible, seriously terrible, think hulk with different colored hairs at times and Neanderthalic facial features combined with an intelligence that parallels a Doberman, that's your standard mutant, color variations are possible but not often, and they can talk, and they aren't constantly assailants.

Yes in FO1 they were the main bad guy, you could still talk to mutants, they weren't mute, they weren't so hateful that they could only scream a feral bellow at you and charge without a word.

My biggest beef with the game is Mutants and BoS, they've botched them completely, and completely destroyed the continuity of the Fallout universe by doing so.

Is it so hard to think of SOMETHING unique, something aside from Chinese AK knockoffs...

I could possibly forgive an exiled BoS paladin forming a rag-tag group of locals after taking a shine to them, but not in power armor and definately not calling themselves BoS.

A renegade militant offshoot of the BoS is not too hard to imagine, but an entire platoon? that's a little much for the BoS to miss, what with Shady Sands a.k.a. NCR gaining power right next door to their bunker.

The Mutants can always be explained by stupid scientists doing stupid things with their spare time and could easily dream themselves into being world heroes by completing the research on the FEV and saving everyone from a post apoc hell.

But to change them so drastically that they look completely different from the same base viral strain, that's just not right, when you got the Bubonic Plague, there's always lymph nodes swelling up, when you got flesh eating disease, your body starts rotting and falling apart.

It would have to be a completely different virus, or possibly a merger of the FEV and a different airborne virus to form a super-strain, but that would be very hard to simulate and create in a lab environment and produce erratic results that could very well kill the potentially evolving organism...

To put it in Trekkie terms, it's like Enterprise, it looks pretty, but it' sucked and blew continuity out the airlock.
 
I went to sclegacy earlier today to see if any new info on SC2 came out.
Waiting there for me was an interesting little blurb.
See, SC2 fans had been complaining that the units in SC2 looked a little too bright and cartoony.
Amazingly, at blizzard, they have employees that communicate with and monitor what fans think.
Crazier yet, they actually listen to good suggestions the fanbase advances.
So, I read the article, and it seem because of their devoted fanbase's concerns, they changed the entire art direction of the RTS part of the game and changed units from bright and cartoony to battleworn and dirty.
Let me restate that.
THEY CHANGED THE ENTIRE ART DIRECTION OF THE RTS GAME PORTION OF SC2 BECAUSE OF FANS.

Then, me as a pitiable forever disappointed FO3 fan checks out the screenshots and info in the OXM magazine.
What do I get? I get,"We're making oblivion with guns! with all the parts of oblivion you hated thrown in!"
and "We're making this game the way we want and nothing you say can change that fact"
and radioactive zombies.
and stairway dismount style supermutant dismemberment.

So, to recap, blizzard changes an entire aspect of their game due to fan concern, bethesda cultivates an actively hostile relationship with a fanbase that they purchased from people that actually knew how to design a game, and is adamant that they're making THEIR game no matter what.

Out of curiosity, which of these two games do you think I'll be purchasing this fall 2008?
 
Back
Top