PSM praises writing of Fallout: New Vegas

[Crni Vuk]

thats your job Orion

 

[orionquest]

I wonder how many journos will go back and change their obscenely high reviews of FO3's dialogue after this.

Change their reviews?

That would mean having to alter something i.e. work!

W.O.R.K ( Meeting at 2 pm in conference room)

Emma Ployee: hmm, is that some sort of a mod or is it patch or better yet a firmware upgrade?

What are the procedures/rules?

BriberitoBethboss: Never mind, just keep stringing them Doritos hybrid modded carrot sticks in front of them and they'll write up whatever we want.

Lacy wo Kerr: Can you embed some fish in them chippies that can reverse waistline atrophy?

Busy ness OhNO: What are our circulation numbers again?

What? That low?

How long can we count on Bethesda to subsides our entire budget deficit?

That long? Wippy!

Eddy_Torres: back to W.H.O.R.K.E now. Submission Deadline is in 24 hrs

You don't want me to call penultimate Bethboss who will come on down from the heavens and strike thee in thine athrophitized cubicalismic state of emergency.

 

[orionquest]

thats your job Orion

Who said you can touche' moi se soir?

I'll have to take a gander at your proposition or mine avatar is not Goebbels worthy.

There are multiple ways to generate thin air units in this teenage wasteland that beat staring out the innuendo all day long.

 

[SharkClub]

3) I can already see "Obsidian's writing is nowhere as good as Bethesda's".

That's actually what I fear the most, they'll probably go on to say that it's "too complicated" (compared to Fallout 3) and whatnot.

This is great news nonetheless.

 

[Jesse Heinig]

3) I can already see "Obsidian's writing is nowhere as good as Bethesda's".

That's actually what I fear the most, they'll probably go on to say that it's "too complicated" (compared to Fallout 3) and whatnot.

This is great news nonetheless.

Could wind up like PS:T, with the average gamer saying "TL;DR" and the serious role-players praising it as an epic. With Avellone it's not like you have to worry about the quality of the characters and the story.

 

[Mistrz]

I do hope so.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Larry Liberty?!
Damn, this is an instant win.

Just like the owner of the shop where I bought my first car, Antonio Rodriguez.

 

[Ravager69]

I'm not worried about Chris, I'm worried about the timeframe he's working in.

 

[Public]

I have to say that i honestly thought Moira was one of the better characters in fallout 3.I saw her as being just as stupid as she was intended to be and her quests were pretty fun to do.Im a fan of 3 though, so i guess im a minority here.

I am there with you, she was intended to be fucking annoying and I went with it.

Yes. But you (the player) keep seeing her because she sells stuff.
And not only that, she's the only one who survived when Megaton's been nuked.

It's like:
Beth: Haha, you still have to see and talk to this bitch even after nuking the damn city, to posibly get rid of her.

You: Oh thank you Bethesda, you're made of awesomness!!!1!!!

Journalists: fallout 3 won an award for writing!

I saw her as being just as stupid

And still she's smart enough to be town's merchant...

 

[Eyenixon]

I'm worried about Chris because his subtlety muscle had atrophied to the point of non-existence while he was working on Torment.

 

[rcorporon]

It's nice to see we're already getting the revisionist movement from the gaming press. Recall how, when Oblivion shipped, it won all sorts of awards, despite being dreadful. Then, when FO3 came out, the reviewers said stuff like "Recall shitty feature (a) in Oblivion? Well, that's been fixed." Yet, said shitty feature was never mentioned in the review praisefests of Oblivion.

The same is going on now with FO3, it seems. When the reviews of FO3 came out, all we heard was how immersive it is, 10/10 scores, etc... Now, with NV on the horizon, we're going to hear the "remember shitty feature (b) in FO3? well, it's been fixed!"

 

[Jesse Heinig]

I'm not worried about Chris, I'm worried about the timeframe he's working in.

Presumably the KOTOR2 experience has provided Obsidian with some tools built out of crisis time. I expect they have learned a bit from that history!

 

[UniversalWolf]

The same is going on now with FO3, it seems. When the reviews of FO3 came out, all we heard was how immersive it is, 10/10 scores, etc... Now, with NV on the horizon, we're going to hear the "remember shitty feature (b) in FO3? well, it's been fixed!"

Ha! Good observation. I've never read an Oblivion review, and I didn't spend much time reading "Fallout 3" reviews (despite Per's best efforts), but I read enough to know you're on to something here.

I suppose you can't praise something like "Fallout 3" as the greatest thing ever and then, within such a short span of time, praise another game as the greatest thing ever without simultaneously tearing down the first greatest thing ever.

 

[OakTable]

I am among the minority here (a guy who LIKES Bethesda's games), and even I tire of the Rybicki maneuver (basically a reviewer only mentions a flaw of the game months after it is reviewed). You know, if you don't like the flaw, Mr. Reviewer, mention it in the review. Make them lose some sales and learn from their mistakes, not hide it so you don't hurt their feelings.

 

[Dionysus]

I am among the minority here (a guy who LIKES Bethesda's games), and even I tire of the Rybicki maneuver (basically a reviewer only mentions a flaw of the game months after it is reviewed).

I think it's an overblown complaint based on a stupid article. The truth is, in order to really show this problem, you need to catch the same author missing a flaw and noting it in a preview without any cuing from the devs, and that probably doesn't happen very often. Certainly, no one bothered to meet that criterion before complaining here. Hell, people didn't even need to look at the PSM3 FO3 review before they started bitching about this. Oh let's face it, no one here even knows or cares who the author is.

The biggest problems with videogame reviews are that games are rushed to reviewers, paid for by publisher dollars (almost directly) and the most prestige attached to the position is held by guys with names like Seanbaby. And I blame all of those things on the audience rather than the messenger.

 

[Beelzebud]

I am among the minority here (a guy who LIKES Bethesda's games), and even I tire of the Rybicki maneuver (basically a reviewer only mentions a flaw of the game months after it is reviewed). You know, if you don't like the flaw, Mr. Reviewer, mention it in the review. Make them lose some sales and learn from their mistakes, not hide it so you don't hurt their feelings.

You're making a mistake of assuming that is their motive.

The real motive is that if you trash a game from a company like Bethesda, you don't get the free trip to California (or Vegas), free suite at a nice hotel, and a bunch of free food and drinks. For some of their early Fallout 3 reviews, that's exactly what they did. Good luck getting an objective opinion out of someone who's just been given a free vacation.

If you think that's hyperbole, it's unfortunately not.

 

[Jesse Heinig]

I am among the minority here (a guy who LIKES Bethesda's games), and even I tire of the Rybicki maneuver (basically a reviewer only mentions a flaw of the game months after it is reviewed). You know, if you don't like the flaw, Mr. Reviewer, mention it in the review. Make them lose some sales and learn from their mistakes, not hide it so you don't hurt their feelings.

You're making a mistake of assuming that is their motive.

The real motive is that if you trash a game from a company like Bethesda, you don't get the free trip to California (or Vegas), free suite at a nice hotel, and a bunch of free food and drinks. For some of their early Fallout 3 reviews, that's exactly what they did. Good luck getting an objective opinion out of someone who's just been given a free vacation.

If you think that's hyperbole, it's unfortunately not.

That's not quite as common a motivation as "If we give the game a shit review, we will never get a preview peek at any game by this company again, which means we will not be able to compete on content with other review magazines/websites."

 

[Danilh]

That's not quite as common a motivation as "If we give the game a shit review, we will never get a preview peek at any game by this company again, which means we will not be able to compete on content with other review magazines/websites."

I hadn't looked into it that way, but if all game magazines(if we all cooperate and live happily) simply told the truth, a company would never be able to simply try to muffle them out. Of course, that is never going to happen

 

[Beelzebud]

That's not quite as common a motivation as "If we give the game a shit review, we will never get a preview peek at any game by this company again, which means we will not be able to compete on content with other review magazines/websites."

I agree. Your scenario is definitely what happens in the gaming press all of the time.

My scenario was specific to Bethesda, although I'm sure other companies handle it that way too. One of the first reviews I read for Fallout 3 was for a very prominent webpage, and the guy spent his first paragraph bragging about the hotel Bethesda put him up in to do their supervised demo.

 

[Radman]

Well this is some good news on the New Vegas front.

As for the state of major reviewing magazines/sites we only have to look at the Kane and Lynch Gamespot incident to see how much the publishers have their foot in the door of professional reviewers.

Like so many things in this not so fair world of ours it stinks but thats life... All hail the almighty dollar....