Pete Hines on negativity

[Anani Masu]

None of this would really be a problem except that, to me, it seems like NMA has tried to position itself as synonymous with "Fallout fans". Checking the news here and getting annoyed by that is what made me decide to start posting. I'm a Fallout fan who's interested about Fallout 3. I know other Fallout fans who are interested in Fallout 3. There are Fallout fans here who don't like what they see. I don't think there's any way of knowing what the fanbase as a whole feels. This is exacerbated by the fact that since Oblivion sold 5 times Fallout 1 and 2 put together, the sales are unlikely to prove anything either way. Well, I suppose if it did FO:BOS level 20k a week sales then that would be a good indication.

 

[Xenophile]

This is a rather narrow view of RPGs you have.

RPG isn't this one, narrowly defined genre of which all games follow on specific design set. RPG is an umbrella term, ranging from action RPGs to traditional RPGs as you describe. One is not more RPG than the other, it's just a matter of preference.

Anyway, if Fallout remains true to the small, core definition of the originals, that is to say a retro-50s post-apocalyptic pen and paper emulation, then it'd be a true sequel. Details aside, all of the setting details emerge from the being retro-50s post-apocalyptic and all of the gameplay details (choice and consequence, turn-based combat) emerge from it being a pen and paper emulation.

It's a bit of an academic question tho', isn't it?

No.. I think most action RPG's would not fit even the 2 items I listed.

I know it seems academic but what I am trying to learn is "to you" what would be required beyond the "choices & consequences" and setting. So far you have said above TB combat. I am just trying to understand what your arguement for "non-sequal" comes from.

Specificly I feel that there is a huge difference between "Tabletop experience" and "Pen & Paper emulation". The former being the feeling of consequences and freedom to solve problems any way you can think of. The later being the original framework that the former was possible in. I think that pen and paper rules though are far from the only way to create a "tabletop experience". So I am trying to understand from your perspective how specificly fallout 3 fails to capture the "core" of Fallout.

So far your arguement is that the game presentation and rule systems must remain static to be a fallout sequel. I think that is where we disagree.

 

[Brother None]

None of this would really be a problem except that, to me, it seems like NMA has tried to position itself as synonymous with "Fallout fans". Checking the news here and getting annoyed by that is what made me decide to start posting.

What? The news talked about us defining ourselves as Fallout fans? That seems a bit unlikely, that's not really the kind of stuff we put in our newsposts.

Anyway, if you're talking about NMA as a site then no, you're wrong, NMA is not about positioning themselves as being synonymous with Fallout fans, and has talked about other fan's opinions before. Our staff has no problem recognizing people who are excited about Fallout 3 as fans, and we've never said otherwise. We go out of our way to accommodate our newsposting to a neutral tone and to keep our article-writing primarily on an informative basis so that we provide services to all Fallout fans rather than just those that agree with us.

In other words, I'm pretty insulted by your implication, considering how hard we work to keep our site friendly to all Fallout fans.

Our forum is another business, and I can't speak for the behaviour of our users. The NMA community isn't NMA, tho', that's why it's called the NMA community and not NMA.

No.. I think most action RPG's would not fit even the 2 items I listed.

I know. And I'm just saying it seems to me your definition was about traditional (pen and paper emulating) RPGs, and not RPGs as the broad genre term, how it is commonly used.

I know it seems academic but what I am trying to learn is "to you" what would be required beyond the "choices & consequences" and setting. So far you have said above TB combat. I am just trying to understand what your arguement for "non-sequal" comes from.

Specificly I feel that there is a huge difference between "Tabletop experience" and "Pen & Paper emulation". The former being the feeling of consequences and freedom to solve problems any way you can think of. The later being the original framework that the former was possible in. I think that pen and paper rules though are far from the only way to create a "tabletop experience". So I am trying to understand from your perspective how specificly fallout 3 fails to capture the "core" of Fallout.

Fallout's goal wasn't to create the tabletop experience, it was to emulate pen and paper gameplay. Chris Taylor, Fallout lead designer:

5. Give us an idea of the creative process involved in converting the game from pen and paper to a computer game.

Chris Taylor
The paper and pencil gaming was something we tried to emulate.

Anyway, I don't understand your questions. I don't have any personal list of "demands" for a Fallout sequel since I don't think my personal opinion matters. That said, I summed up what I've seen as Fallout's original intent as retro-50s post-apocalyptic pen and paper emulation. Everything just follows from there, so do I really need to make a list. Pen and paper emulation means choice 'n consequence, it means a detailed RPG system (SPECIAL), it means turn-based combat, it means character skill over player skill. Those aren't things I need to detail, they're things that follow logically from the intent to emulate pen and paper gameplay.

Bethesda simply never cared about Fallout's pen and paper emulating roots, they've torn it from one sub-set of RPGs (traditional) and replanted it as another sub-set (FPSRPG). That is the functional equivalent of changing the genre, they might as well have made it a straight FPS or racing game. Traditional RPGs and FPSRPGs just aren't the same genre.

And I have some problems accepting a game in the same setting but of a different genre as a sequel. I usually call them spin-offs.[/quote]

 

[Aero]

For the sake of arguement, let's say Fallout 3 follows the core tenents of an RPG (Consequences, character skill determinate in outcome, etc.), and it carries the world created from original Fallouts. (I understand you probably don't agree on the above points)

What specificly do you think it would still lack that would prevent it from being called a sequel?

This is a rather narrow view of RPGs you have.

RPG isn't this one, narrowly defined genre of which all games follow on specific design set. RPG is an umbrella term, ranging from action RPGs to traditional RPGs as you describe. One is not more RPG than the other, it's just a matter of preference.

Anyway, if Fallout remains true to the small, core definition of the originals, that is to say a retro-50s post-apocalyptic pen and paper emulation, then it'd be a true sequel. Details aside, all of the setting details emerge from the being retro-50s post-apocalyptic and all of the gameplay details (choice and consequence, turn-based combat) emerge from it being a pen and paper emulation.

Details would still be hammered on, as was the case for Van Buren, but its status of sequel would not be in much doubt. Interestingly enough, the status of Van Buren as a sequel to Fallout 3 was never in doubt, despite the fact that it had both TB and RT (hell to balance). Why? Because it was designed from the philosophy of pen and paper emulation outwards. If you start there, you can't help but pick up TB combat along the way, and RT combat being tagged on hurts the balance of your game but doesn't change the fact that your intention is like that of the originals.

It's a bit of an academic question tho', isn't it?

EDIT: also, you could seriously mess up and just make a shitty game despite having the right starting principles, I guess

So your saying because Bethesda decided to go east coast, Dropped TB, Iso, that It cant ever be a true sequel in your Eyes?

I have to disagree. Look at all the changes that have happened with other series. Look at Final Fantasy. Look at Zelda, Look At Mario. So is Paper Mario not a true Sequel? Or Twilight Princess not a Zelda game? Just something they threw the name on so people would by it? Look at how many times the game mechanics and settings have changed For Final Fantasy.

I know your really into the original Fallout games Brother None. I really like them as well. Two of my favorite pc games. (daggerfall is another)

Gawd, sounds like I'm trying to argue. I'm not. I seriously want your opinion on this

 

[sarfa]

This is what you said.

No it wasn't, you're misinterpreting his post.

What I got from the phrase I bolded was that Cow said that the majority of people wanted the game change, and he was one of them. I just pointed out that wasn't the case, the majority of people that care at all about Fallout 3 are not us, and it is the minority of people that want the game changed.

Now I'm in that minority as well, but we are a minority.

Cows post was critiscising Bethesda's buisness practice in making the game the way they are, and was based on the idea that Fallout fans are the people Bethesda are trying to get to buy this game. They're claiming that, but we all know this games target audience is Oblivion fans (Not even people who liked Morrowind like I did) hence if the consumer is god, they are god in ths instance.

Ofcourse, if Cow was claiming that he agreed with the majority of people who wanted the game changed, and disagrees with the minority of people who want the game changed, he still isn't god as both groups are outnumbered by those who don't want the game changed.

 

[Brother None]

I have to disagree. Look at all the changes that have happened with other series. Look at Final Fantasy. Look at Zelda, Look At Mario. So is Paper Mario not a true Sequel? Or Twilight Princess not a Zelda game? Just something they threw the name on so people would by it? Look at how many times the game mechanics and settings have changed For Final Fantasy.

Paper Mario is a spin-off. I'm not familiar with the Legend of Zelda games so I dunno. Final Fantasy is a franchise based on a reinvention, without a core principle of gameplay.

That said, I'm a big fan of game series making logical changes to better support their own gameplay. Like GTA 2 to GTA 3. The change of camera perspective clearly functions to better support the gunning and racing gameplay of GTA 3. But the core gameplay principles are the same.

The core gameplay principle of the Fallout series is pen and paper emulation. First-person and turn-based are not interpretations of pen and paper emulation, they're abandonments.

Also, I didn't talk about the east coast.

What I got from the phrase I bolded was that Cow said that the majority of people wanted the game change, and he was one of them. I just pointed out that wasn't the case, the majority of people that care at all about Fallout 3 are not us, and it is the minority of people that want the game changed.

Cow's post started in saying he wasn't talking for himself. He was making the populist argument of Fallout 3, from the mass' perspective, not from his own perspective.

 

[beverageleverage]

So your saying because Bethesda decided to go east coast, Dropped TB, Iso, that It cant ever be a true sequel in your Eyes?

What is left after taking these away? Dialogue? Quests? After watching the preview videos I can see that bethesda is really do those justice

 

[PaladinHeart]

The problem isn't debating Fallout 3 at all. The problem is people failing to respect differences in each other's basics views.

Yes. I fully agree with you.

But just because we don't like it doesn't mean we, as the fans, have any say so in whether or not it's actually a true sequel. The best thing to do is simply tell them you disagree with their new direction, liked the old style better, etc.

We have to roll over for the cash? Accept Fallout 3 as a sequel simply because it has a 3 behind it?

I requoted myself because you took that out of context. We should mention each and every single detail that we have a problem with, why we have a problem with it, and how it could possibly be done better. Constructive criticisms and feedback are essential. Or at least very very useful design tools.

The problem with criticisms comes in when someone else says, "Hey, your criticism sucks. It's fine. Don't say anything about it.." The anti-criticizers are a waste of forum space.

As for the title itself, they are pretty much re-imagining the whole game. Fallout 3 IS a stupid title for it. Fallout: Vault 101 would be a better title. Or Fallout: (insert the year of Fallout 3 here) would be even better. They did make a bad decision with the title, but I don't see how they could rectify it at this point.

You can say all you want (positively or negatively) about it being Fallout 3. I just don't think it will do any good.

Yeah, my bad.. we do have a say-so. Bethesda just doesn't seem to want to listen.

I have to say though, that I think Fallout is better off in the hands of Bethesda than with Interplay, considering the last incarnation the game took on.

Discussing amongst ourselves whether it is isn't something isn't going to accomplish anything short of a spam war (or a warning/strike from BN when you fail to meet his discussionary expectations).

You do realise Bethesda actually turned down applications from (at least one) original Fallout developer, right?

Yes, I do realize it. It's their loss, and another company's gain. It's sad that companies like Troika lack the funds to fully realize their dreams.

 

[Brother None]

You can say all you want (positively or negatively) about it being Fallout 3. I just don't think it will do any good.

You're right, of course, but best to avoid this line of thinking or consistently thinking it true, because none of our discussing here does any good. Bethesda either hates or fears us, they're certainly not taking our opinions seriously.

 

[Anani Masu]

Our forum is another business, and I can't speak for the behaviour of our users. The NMA community isn't NMA, tho', that's why it's called the NMA community and not NMA.

I agree the frontpage is generally kept pretty free of that sort of thing. However I can't agree at all on what's quoted above. The site and the community it has fostered are inseparable. I can assure you the negative perception of NMA doesn't stem from the Fallout 1 NPC FAQ.

 

[Quaid]

You play the game and you see what you think.

ORLY?

Link to the demo.

Of any Bethesda game.

Ever.

+10 Karma points to you my friend.

I can't help but agree: 0.1% of your fanbase gets to 'play the game and see what they think' and this is good for the rest of us how? I would have thought after doing such a despicable thing with the Oblivion gameplay footage as 'faking' the radiant A.I., you would be more willing to release a small demo for ALL potential F3 players to mend such a P.R. mistake. Just to prove to us Beth has nothing to hide.

 

[Brother None]

I agree the frontpage is generally kept pretty free of that sort of thing. However I can't agree at all on what's quoted above. The site and the community it has fostered are inseparable. I can assure you the negative perception of NMA doesn't stem from the Fallout 1 NPC FAQ.

Really? What's keeping people from just ignoring the forum and reading the news and articles? Since we do actually keep our community at bay from our level of writing and bias in news and articles, the site and community are very much separable (except of course in the organic sense, there's no site without a community and vice versa).

You're talking about perception. But perception isn't reality. The fact that other people have issues telling a forum and a site apart does not actually impact what NMA is or intends to do.

I do kind of think that to accuse NMA of pushing the perception that the dominant community opinion is the only "true" opinion of "true" fans is just really unfair when we have a group of volunteer staff that works really, really hard on providing fairly value-free news and articles (articles less so, but the removal of bias there comes more from giving others a chance for counter-points (Tale of Two Cities)).

That's why I don't understand why reading newsposts from NMA as a site would give you the need to join and argue with NMA the community.

 

[LowComDenom]

Fallout is best off in the hands that actually created it (i.e. Tim Cain, Boyarsky, Taylor and crew). Their vision that I played is what makes Fallout "Fallout"...not Todd Howard's wonky "interpretation" of it.

AFAIK, the examples of Mario, Zelda and FF given earlier were all created with at least some input from the original designers (Shiggy and Sakaguchi).

Was there a Metroid 4? No... the spin offs were renamed as part of the Metroid Prime series when it went FPS.

I don't care about the namesake as "Fallout" has already been abused by Interplay and it means nothing. But consider a game like Arcanum that "feels" Fallout-y in a completely different setting with different rules.

 

[Xenophile]

Ok.. last post of the night..

I re-read that inteview and I have to say that if you look at their summations of what is fallout and the descriptions of what you would have to have to still be fallout.. nowhere do they mention an actual game system. Artwork, fiction elements, those were listed.

I think that that many here hold those game systems in too high importance. Sure Fallout was a P&P emulation, but only because it was originally built on a "GURPS" license. I do think the developers held the "Tabletop Experience" as a primary goal, but the emulation was simply a fact of the licensing. (I am not saying that had they come in without the license that it might not have turned out the same)

I think this would be a different discussion all together if it was originally released as "GURPS:FALLOUT" and had stuck with the P&P license. Then all the "sequals" would be "tied" to that foundaion implimentation. But that's not what happened, and I think the emphasise then is free to shift to the setting and not the systems.

 

[Aero]

I have to disagree. Look at all the changes that have happened with other series. Look at Final Fantasy. Look at Zelda, Look At Mario. So is Paper Mario not a true Sequel? Or Twilight Princess not a Zelda game? Just something they threw the name on so people would by it? Look at how many times the game mechanics and settings have changed For Final Fantasy.

Paper Mario is a spin-off. I'm not familiar with the Legend of Zelda games so I dunno. Final Fantasy is a franchise based on a reinvention, without a core principle of gameplay.

That said, I'm a big fan of game series making logical changes to better support their own gameplay. Like GTA 2 to GTA 3. The change of camera perspective clearly functions to better support the gunning and racing gameplay of GTA 3. But the core gameplay principles are the same.

The core gameplay principle of the Fallout series is pen and paper emulation. First-person and turn-based are not interpretations of pen and paper emulation, they're abandonments.

Also, I didn't talk about the east coast.

I understand where you are coming from there about PnP games. most of the older games were designed after PnP Most games series have advanced passed that. Or have faded. Bethesdas Elder Scroll series is one that has advanced. I Can clearly see why they made the jump with Fallout 3 from PnP to FPS (don't get me worng. I'D MUCH prefer it in Iso, TB)

Bethesda Has been around since 1985 (acquired by Zenimax in 99 but both funded by Chris Weaver) ES: Arena was FP so the Isometric view has never really been apart of their skill set. Everything else the Series has advanced with the Tech. They just used there current skill set to mold there version of Fallout.
It was logical for Bethesda to do it this way because thats the way they have done games in the past. I'm rather glad they did because that means Fallout3 Is actually gonna be made. And hopefully Fallout 4 and 5 ect.

Paper Mario was a bad choice. So lets say Super Mario Galaxy. It is not a spin off. In fact with the new Wii remote it is a FPS in some ways. Shooting Star bits at enemies.(If fallout ever came out on Wii it would rock because of the Wii remotes pointer ability.)

Bah Your not familiar with The Zelda???? What kinda gamer do you call yourself....Naw I'm just kidding. You got me On final fantasy however. it Is based on Change every game. But then again there working on number 13 now. Fallout is only on its 3rd game. (not counting BoS And Tactics)

True You did not say anything about East Coast. My bad.

 

[Brother None]

Bethesdas Elder Scroll series is one that has advanced.

No it hasn't, TES was never about pen and paper emulation, it was about actiony FP gameplay with RPG elements.

Bethesda Has been around since 1985 (acquired by Zenimax in 99 but both funded by Chris Weaver) ES: Arena was FP so the Isometric view has never really been apart of their skill set. Everything else the Series has advanced with the Tech. They just used there current skill set to mold there version of Fallout.
It was logical for Bethesda to do it this way because thats the way they have done games in the past. I'm rather glad they did because that means Fallout3 Is actually gonna be made. And hopefully Fallout 4 and 5 ect.

Look, uhm, you're not really making any arguments we haven't heard a thousand times before. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm just going to stop here and maybe someone else will explain our viewpoint but I'm kind of tired of constant repetition. If you're curious about viewpoints on what you're saying, there's a lot in the archives.

I think that that many here hold those game systems in too high importance. Sure Fallout was a P&P emulation, but only because it was originally built on a "GURPS" license. I do think the developers held the "Tabletop Experience" as a primary goal, but the emulation was simply a fact of the licensing.

I just quoted the lead designer literally saying "paper and pencil gaming was something we tried to emulate."

 

[Anani Masu]

That's why I don't understand why reading newsposts from NMA as a site would give you the need to join and argue with NMA the community.

Ohh if that's all that's hanging you up it's pretty simple. I always look for other people's perception on a subject to help mull over information. I read reviews of movies or books that I've already finished, that sort of thing. In this case I can't think of any website I go to where after reading a story, I don't also read the comments.

 

[M-26-7]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=201105
I'm just going to put this right here.

 

[Brother None]

Oh, 'k, sorry, you meant newsthreads instead of newsposts?

Simple misunderstand then. Good 'nough.

Yes, a lot of users here make some claims towards NMA representing some kind of core fandom. I dunno, true or not I just find such remarks unnecessary, and I really hate the term "true fan". But hey, I'm not everyone.

 

[gc051360]

I think this would be a different discussion all together if it was originally released as "GURPS:FALLOUT" and had stuck with the P&P license. Then all the "sequals" would be "tied" to that foundaion implimentation. But that's not what happened, and I think the emphasise then is free to shift to the setting and not the systems.

Wait....what?

Didn't Fallout 1 and 2 establish gameplay principles by themselves?

The gameplay of fallout strove to emulate pen and paper RPGs, yes? Then wouldn't a game that strove to be a sequel....emulate Fallout, thus emulating pen and paper RPGs?

Despite not being called "GURPS" and not actually using the GURPS system....it still uses a system pretty close. You think that since it isn't directly tied to GURPS, gameplay can be ignored? That seems like kind of a silly argument.