PC Gamer UK on NMA and AoD

[bonanza]

"Nicely ignoring my point.
Again: the fact that you can ignore a flaw doesn't make that flaw any better."

In your post you said "irrational setting", implying that one flawed point makes the whole setting irrational. Whether or not you wanted to imply this, every possible ingorance of your actual point results from your unclear statement.

"Yet this is not anywhere near what you said in your first post about killable children in this thread"

You are right. I should have sait something along the lines "NMA (or its forum members) shouldn't have raised this as issue isolated from the whole concept of freedom represented by it"
I am just wondering why killable children have to be used as a lackmus paper for this concept of freedom?
I predict there will be much more severe problems in FO 3, for example not being able to kill plot critical characters (yes again that plot, because thats one of the favourite explanations of game devs why certain characters cant be killed) just like in Oblivion.


"Yes, and this still has no impact whatsoever on those flaws."
Of course it has. It doesn't have impact on the existance of these flaws, but on how much they mean.

You can't possibly tell me that if Bethesda produced a perfect Fallout sequel with the expecption that children in the game can't be killed, you would lose more than two or three sentences on nitpicking about this missing feature?

Or vice versa, if FO 3 becomes the catastrophe we all expecting it to be, but it would be possible to kill children, would you spent more than two or three sentences on commenting about how Beth has fucked up everything, but at least Children are killable?

 

[Sorrow]

You can't possibly tell me that if Bethesda produced a perfect Fallout sequel with the expecption that children in the game can't be killed, you would lose more than two or three sentences on nitpicking about this missing feature?

Err...
Killable children aren't a special feature, unkillable NPCs are.
That's why Troika, removed children from ToEE instead of making them unkillable.

 

[Lexx]

Aren't you tired of all the discussions?

 

[Paladin Solo]

bonanza, why can't you just read what Sander said? Nowhere has he stated that it's doomed to disaster if there aren't killable children. Since you're one for making analogies, wrap your clouded mind around this;

You see a sandbox
you take some sand out of the sandbox
you put some dirt in it
the sandbox is different

The point he is making, which you seemed to have missed time and again, is that one design change/flaw warrants a complaint, especially if it limits and dumbs down the game for the console kiddies/Jack Thompson wannabees. Now, stop with your idiotic "omg, if there is no child-murderers it's not fallout you n00bs!" quotes, because that isn't what we're saying.

There are ALWAYS gripes with something. Fallout 1 had them, Fallout 2 had them, Fallout 3 already has them. People are entitled to disagree with design decisions.

so calm down

Watch your attitude.

 

[SuAside]

Further insults are unacceptable.

watch it! kitty got claws...

 

[Tagaziel]

Further insults are unacceptable.

watch it! kitty got claws...

<centeR>

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.</center>

 

[Per]

However, what if Beth just made every NPC killable with the exception of kids? That would be quite ok.

Being unable to target neutrals à la KotOR would be more consistent and credible than being able to shoot a kid between the eyes to no effect. Not saying that is Fallouty, mind you.

NMA shouldn't have raised the topic of killable children at all,

Because we shouldn't talk about controversial topics... they are bad! No good can come from it.

Making all that fuzz about the _weakest_ point of your argumentation (and there is a bunch of good arguments against Beths FO 3 as seen in your preview and hundreds of post in this forum) just weakens your own position.

Did you somehow get the impression that the "fuzz" was the result of a lot of NMAers agreeing with each other?

It makes it pretty easy for enemies to find strawman fooder.

Um, people who want to make illogical claims will find a way to do so. We don't need to change our behaviour to accommodate them.

I edited it out before even reading your comment,in fact not more than a few seconds after I posted it, so calm down.

No, moderators will actually keep telling you when you're being an asshole.

I am just wondering why killable children have to be used as a lackmus paper for this concept of freedom?

I am just wondering where you conjured up your smug rhetorical questions from?

 

[quietfanatic]

How nice to see another member of the press role-playing the ignorant troll, with the same tired, mis-representative non-arguments.

I am still a little puzzled by the apparent great extent of hatred and criticism of the NMA community.

A large part of it is probably in reaction to strong perceived arrogance and hostility. The presence of rational, quality argument is probably what really pisses people off. That combination of passion and reason is threatening and makes a more attractive target. But then attackers resort to cherry-picking silly comments and dismissing us as irrational haters.

I find the impudent covert trolls among the newbs more annoying than the journos, who commonly exaggerate for dramatic effect, as forum members have the opportunity to understand this community but instead go on complaining and come here to tell us what to do. Sadly they are more likely to believe their own propaganda than the journalist. Maybe it is because they subconsciously resent the possibility that people might be passionate about something? I believe it is firstly because they are stupid and insecure. I would ask Rosh to be more tolerant in times past, but now I would be sorely tempted to ban people for stupidity myself. Or is it that one can think, but chooses not to?

If you are more passionate about kicking NMA than you are about Fallout, please piss off. You shouldn't have come here.

 

[bonanza]

However, what if Beth just made every NPC killable with the exception of kids? That would be quite ok.

Being unable to target neutrals à la KotOR would be more consistent and credible than being able to shoot a kid between the eyes to no effect. Not saying that is Fallouty, mind you.

I actually had non-targetable children in mind when saying unkillable.
Not saying this is Fallouty, mind you, but it could be an ok compromise to have everyone else being killable except children. It would be a lot better thant Kotors system of not being able to kill anyone on your own except if the story or quests tell you too.

If you think it wouldn't, then I assume its you who hasn't entirely grasped the concept of freedom in FO.

NMA shouldn't have raised the topic of killable children at all,

Because we shouldn't talk about controversial topics... they are bad! No good can come from it.

I have already admitted to Sander that in this form what I said is wrong and I should have formulated it differently to bring over my point. (See my last post)
Didn't read the discussion or just happy to get a free punch at me?

Making all that fuzz about the _weakest_ point of your argumentation (and there is a bunch of good arguments against Beths FO 3 as seen in your preview and hundreds of post in this forum) just weakens your own position.

Did you somehow get the impression that the "fuzz" was the result of a lot of NMAers agreeing with each other?

I don't know exactly what you mean by this.

It makes it pretty easy for enemies to find strawman fooder.

Um, people who want to make illogical claims will find a way to do so. We don't need to change our behaviour to accommodate them.

But you could make it harder for them

I edited it out before even reading your comment,in fact not more than a few seconds after I posted it, so calm down.

No, moderators will actually keep telling you when you're being an asshole.

Yeah, sorry. Dont know exactly what you expect me to do now? Write down "Im an asshole" on a piece of paper a hundred times? As I said, ive edited it out a few seconds after I posted it, out of my own will because I realized I made a mistake. I am deeply sorry for it, but get over it, seriously.

I am just wondering why killable children have to be used as a lackmus paper for this concept of freedom?

I am just wondering where you conjured up your smug rhetorical questions from?

[/quote]

Please eloborate.
Anyways, maybe I should elobarate on what Ive meant:
The inability to kill children is not necessarily a clear indicator that Beth isn't able to grasp the freedom concept or willing to put it in the game.
It could have other practical reasons, like the fear of an moral outrage if some media get to know of the possiblity to kill children. Sure, being pussies doesn't make Bethesda more sympathic, but I could understand it.
Lets say they let you kill everybody like in the original Fallout, except a few douzens of kids. They could still in all honesty say "sorry dudes, were aware of what that freedom concept means and what you expect, and we have done our best to realize it (killable npcs including plot critical ones) but we don't have the guts to include killable children".
Of course thats Beth from a alternative universe but Im just speaking hypotheticly all the time.

Now, what is a clear lackmus paper for lacking understanding of the "freedom concept then?"
Well, unillable plot NPCs. Because unlike the children, theres no excuse on why make plot NPCs immortal except "we need them for the story and we don't want you to kill them". And thats the opposite of the freedom FO gives you.
(And basicly Beth has already confirmed the existance of such unkillable NPCs by saying that you cant kill your father and screw the plot up this way)

Ill elobare a bit more: Baldurs Gate 2 let you quantiavly kill almost as many NPCs as in Fallout. In FO it was 100 %, in BG2 it was 90 % - you couldn't kill...plot NPCs.
So quantintavly you could almost kill all NPCs, but BG2 is (rightfully) not hailed as a representant of the freedom concept like Fallout.
Why? Because the quality of the nonkillable NPCs is the determinating factor. Non-killable PLOT NPCs means you abandon the freedom-concept in favour of a more railroading story concept.

Lets make a thought experiments: Lets just assume BG 2 has 20 unkillable plotimportant NPCs. Lets imagine the game was different. You can kill all these 20 guys like in Fallout, instead the game has 20 random no-name NPCs around the gameworld you cant kill because of mysterious reason.

From a quantative point of view, you still have 20 unkillable NPCs. From a quality point of view, the game would be MUCH closer to the concept of freedom represented by Fallout than it is now. Why? Because it abandonded the railroaded "you may only kill those guys when the story allows you" concept and came closer to the "freedom" concept. The 20 unkillable random NPCs would still be somewhat of a gripe, but not as major as having 20 unkillable plotimportant characters.
Wouldn't you agree? (This is not a rhetorical question)

It would be the same with the children in FO 3. You cant look on the issue from a binary point of view: Either you can kill all beings and it is Fallouty, or you can kill everything but one single being and its not Fallouty. You have to access it gradually. And the quality of the non-killable NPCs is a important factor here.

Of course this is hypothetical thought. Bethesda won't include killable plot NPCs and they won't include killable children. None of them. Because they are shitty designers.

If you are more passionate about kicking NMA than you are about Fallout, please piss off. You shouldn't have come here.

Im not entirely sure, are you refering to me? Im not passionate about kicking NMA, in fact I like this side and except a few critisims I have I very much respect what youre doing here. I'm propably on the same page as you when it comes to 95 % of Fallout related issues.

I don't what could have led you to this comment, either just bad will or maybe not reading my posts.
If you weren't refering to me, just forget what I wrote and I apologize.

 

[Sorrow]

Now, what is a clear lackmus paper for lacking understanding of the "freedom concept then?"
Well, unillable plot NPCs. Because unlike the children, theres no excuse on why make plot NPCs immortal except "we need them for the story and we don't want you to kill them". And thats the opposite of the freedom FO gives you.

Err...
No, there's no excuse for making anyone except plot NPCs unkillable/untargettable.

(And basicly Beth has already confirmed the existance of such unkillable NPCs by saying that you cant kill your father and screw the plot up this way)

So? You couldn't kill the Overseer in Fallout too.

 

[Black]

The inability to kill children is not necessarily a clear indicator that Beth isn't able to grasp the freedom concept or willing to put it in the game.
It could have other practical reasons, like the fear of an moral outrage if some media get to know of the possiblity to kill children. Sure, being pussies doesn't make Bethesda more sympathic, but I could understand it.

Maybe. But maybe not. Let's stick to what we know.
There was a question "will there be killable kids?" and beth's response was "do you really want to kill children?".
There wasn't single word about "we don't want FO3 to get AO rating", they just said something like "yeah, right, like we'll allow you to kill kids."

 

[bonanza]

Now, what is a clear lackmus paper for lacking understanding of the "freedom concept then?"
Well, unillable plot NPCs. Because unlike the children, theres no excuse on why make plot NPCs immortal except "we need them for the story and we don't want you to kill them". And thats the opposite of the freedom FO gives you.

Err...
No, there's no excuse for making anyone except plot NPCs unkillable/untargettable.

Im not sure I understand exactly. You\d prefer non-killable plot NPCs over nonkillable children?

Imho saying "you cant kill this guy cuz hes important to tha plot" is one of the lamest things ever. I liked the FO plot because it wasnt so heaviliy centered on characters. BasicLy you had to kill the Master and his Military Base to win the game (I think the waterchip is optional if you manage to kill master and Base before the water time limit runs out?)

(And basicly Beth has already confirmed the existance of such unkillable NPCs by saying that you cant kill your father and screw the plot up this way)

So? You couldn't kill the Overseer in Fallout too.[/quote]

You couldnt? I always saw you could.. In fact, while never done it myself I thought I even saw a video on youtube with his death animations. Strange. (Im not saracstic, I always thought you can kill the overseer aswell...)
Oh wait, the video showed him being killed outside the vault. Right. So in fact maybe hes unkillable in his chair. But you could attack him, couldnt you? Would it be possible that he is just superstrong and therefore cant be killed by the player?

Anyways, thats an interesting point I didnt know. If I could, I would trade the killable children against the option to kill the overseer in FO 1 (with plot consequences of course, otherwise its kinda pointless). That is, if he really was unkillable in the game.

"There was a question "will there be killable kids?" and beth's response was "do you really want to kill children?". "
I agree with you that that kind of answer is really lame and offending. Not that Id expect anything else from Beth...

 

[Sorrow]

Now, what is a clear lackmus paper for lacking understanding of the "freedom concept then?"
Well, unillable plot NPCs. Because unlike the children, theres no excuse on why make plot NPCs immortal except "we need them for the story and we don't want you to kill them". And thats the opposite of the freedom FO gives you.

Err...
No, there's no excuse for making anyone except plot NPCs unkillable/untargettable.

Im not sure I understand exactly. You\d prefer non-killable plot NPCs over nonkillable children?

Yes. The first is just a sign of the plot needing certain NPC (I'm not talking about the scale of Baldur's Gate, because it rather sucked, but rather as F3 Father/F1 Overseer.). Which is only lame.
The second is a sing of hostile, alien forces messing with our culture, which is disturbing and dangerous.

(And basicly Beth has already confirmed the existance of such unkillable NPCs by saying that you cant kill your father and screw the plot up this way)

So? You couldn't kill the Overseer in Fallout too.

You couldnt? I always saw you could.. In fact, while never done it myself I thought I even saw a video on youtube with his death animations. Strange. (Im not saracstic, I always thought you can kill the overseer aswell...)

No. It happened only in a end scene for an "evil" character. In game it was impossible (I tried it ).

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yes. The first is just a sign of the plot needing certain NPC (I'm not talking about the scale of Baldur's Gate, because it rather sucked, but rather as F3 Father/F1 Overseer.). Which is only lame.
The second is a sing of hostile, alien forces messing with our culture, which is disturbing and dangerous.

Whether it comes from censorship or not, unkillable characters are bad.
The fact that they're vital to the story is a poor excuse. Make the story not need vital characters then. Not so simple, but not hellishly difficult either.

Which reminds me: I should change my signature.

 

[Sorrow]

Maybe. But maybe not. Let's stick to what we know.
There was a question "will there be killable kids?" and beth's response was "do you really want to kill children?".
There wasn't single word about "we don't want FO3 to get AO rating", they just said something like "yeah, right, like we'll allow you to kill kids."

Beth has tendencies to doublethink.

For example, when they bought rights to make Fallout 3, it was going to be FPP because they aren't good in making games with isometric graphics and they specialize in FPP games.

Now they are making Fallout FPP, because FPP is the best perspective for all games and Fallout had 4 pixel chairs and no detail.

Similarly, they are making immortal children, because they don't want controversy.

Now, they are asking "do you really want to kill children?", which is inconsistent with their unhealthy fascination with violence.

So, the blame is never on their side.

 

[Silencer]

Now they are making Fallout FPP, because FPP is the best perspective for all games and Fallout had 4 pixel chairs and no detail.

On a completely offtopic and unrelated note, 8x8 pixel graphics made for Walker inspired The Lemmings, which in turn bore some concept for such an uninspiring and bland title as Blue Byte's Settlers.

If only programmers of yore knew better and had stayed true to the large and detailed sprites as seen in numerous spawned generic platformer-beatemup games as made possible by the refined technology of that time, wouldn't the world be a better place?

No.

Sorry, sarcastic post. Ignore all content.

 

[aronsearle]

No. It happened only in a end scene for an "evil" character. In game it was impossible (I tried it ).

Eh, you press A when you finish dialog outside the vault, and you go into combat mode and can kill him, you have to press it quick though.

They even made a special death animation for him.

 

[Silencer]

bobbythekitten

Seriously. We know. we mean in-game, when it could actually INFLUENCE something.

 

[4too]

Consider

Consider


Sorrow:

... Similarly, they are making immortal children, because they don't want controversy. ...

Consider how 'immortal children' / 'killable kids' has become the buzz phrase for a single issue cop out for the larger/ macro problem.

Bethesda is not emulating the FO1+2 game-play in FO3.
Bethesda is not emulating the FO1+2 consequences of PC actions in FO3.

They have no desire- it's not what they ' do best' , .... or ... they just can't code out the possibilities.

I repeat the premise.

Consider that the larger problem may be that Beth can do the 'math' to see where the maximum accelerated profit lies,
but most likely can't 'code' the web of consequences allowed by FO's 2-D 1990's antique realism, ...
the consequences of actions, ... good, bad, and ugly

Up stream in this thread some spoke of the 'easy' way that was the game industry trend.
Why not consider that a money minter like Bethesda will run with the pack.

It is easier for 3-D Beth to NOT have the realistic 2-D consequences,
such as:
the friendly fire in Den that caps a kid, brands the PC a child killer,
and brings on the auto fire of bounty hunters on the difficult early game road to Modoc.
Such realism in Nex Gen is unprofitable and 'teh hard'.

Beth has chosen FPS game-play for the big market share.
What rpg elements they can include is the unknown.
If it's "easy' then expect it,
include, choice of quest A path over quest B path.
'Teh hard', then EXCLUDE, friendly fire and killable NPC's.

On the consequences of killable NPC's,
in the 3-D big shiny land where exploding heads are funny,
it is 'teh hard' to see the moralizing Beth question. ""do you really want to kill kids"" , as wholly sincere.
It's 'teh easy' to see it as a dodge, and a blow of smoke.




4too

 

[Per]

As I said, ive edited it out a few seconds after I posted it, out of my own will because I realized I made a mistake. I am deeply sorry for it, but get over it, seriously.

Well, you see, there is this thing with people who cannot end an exchange on a moderation matter without compulsively going one up on the moderators. And that thing, ample experience tells us, is that we have no use for them. Mikael Grizzly obviously spotted the stuff you edited out before you had a chance to do so. Since you did remove it, you could have just dropped it. But that wasn't good enough for you; you had to tell him to "calm down". Calm down how? Why? Who knows. So I tell you he was doing his job and you're being snide. You say you're sorry, but you just can't keep from adding that I must "get over it".

So let me welcome you, seriously, to the testing round of NMA's new posting aptitude test. It's based on that ample experience I mentioned and should be quite easy. Pick the right choice and you'll be off without so much as a strike. Pick the wrong choice and you'll suck on the banstick. I'm afraid we had to remove "none of the above" as a valid choice, but we're already making this so very easy for you.

[ ] It's a harsh community, I'm just doing what it takes to fit in. Bitches!
[ ] I'm past the point in my life where I take shit from anyone! That's my fourteenth birthday in case anyone's wondering!!
[ ] no it are YOU who am bitching I only bitch because YOU bitch FIRST DONT GET pANTi3S in TWIST!!!!!
[ ] I don't give a flying fuck about your "strike" system. "Strike" me all you want, I don't care. I scoff in the face of so-called "strikes". I bet I can take seven "strikes" and just laugh it off. Or eight on a good day.
[ ] Man, you're uptight, I'm disappointed, I didn't expect you to be this uptight, don't be so uptight as to reply to this post, I should have the last word, that's not uptight, but you are!
[ ] I don't know you moderator bitches. You wanna moderate me, you gotta earn my respect first. YES that is how it works
[ ] I didn't break the rules, or maybe I did but I had to, if you check I bet you'll find someone else broke some other rule first, so you see I HAD TO DO IT!
[ ] filthy child killing bitches you'll burn pills pills where are my pills
[ ] It's a fair cop. I acknowledge that I was out of line and I have corrected it. I'll try my best to play nice and will take special care not to cop an attitude with mods who are doing their work for the benefit of everyone.
[ ] shamble off