RM Milner on Fallout fans again

[Brother None]

RM Milner's follow-up piece on his earlier musings on Fallout fandom are up on Online Fandom:<blockquote>So there’s another counter-intuitive truth of the era. The interaction I found on the Fallout 3 forum was not too drastically different than the interaction I find in my fantasy football league — communities built on information and interpretation. These two categories of knowledge were first proposed by Nancy Baym in 2000. They fit in snug with Lévy’s propositions about knowledge communities and were all over the Fallout 3 forum. Most of the intense debates over the quality of Fallout 3 centered on the offer of information (such as a link to a screenshot or a quote from a producer) and the interpretation of that information. And in cases where there was no credible information to be proposed, speculation was a sufficient replacement. Even in the most heated moments of confrontation, information was a cardinal value. With very few exceptions, all the debates on the Fallout 3 forum were about knowledge.

An understanding of the Fallout universe was a paramount value on the forum. An understanding of digital-game culture in general wasn’t too far behind. And no matter how one felt about Fallout 3, being able to articulately and rationally discuss nuanced points was the only way to seriously enter into the conversation.
(...)
I think there’s something Bethesda, and producers of media texts in general, can learn from these observations. The Fallout fanbase (at least the majority of the vocal fanbase) has been wary of Bethesda’s handling of Fallout 3 for a while now. And time and exposure has only resulted in a stalemate, if not worsened relations. Part of me thinks that so many fans made up their mind so long ago that the only thing that would satisfy them was a Fallout 3 that looked just like Fallout 1 & 2, with no updates or changes. But another part of me wonders if the problem isn’t one of information and interpretation. Bethesda to date has released only a small number screenshots and one teaser trailer for a game that comes out in a few months. No beta test. No demo. No real glimpse into the process of creating the game. No invitations for input other than forum space and a character attribute contest where Bethesda picked the winner. All other information has been disseminated through third-party sources such as industry magazines. I think maybe Bethesda is ignoring the cardinal values of the Fallout community.
(...)
Right now, it seems like Bethesda and many other media companies are operating under a traditional model of audience relations. Strictly controlling what information they put out and what information they receive. This model might be behind the times. I think it’s telling that the Fallout 3 forum has contained forty-some full threads called “Meet the Devs” where fans can ask producers about anything not related to Fallout 3. Compare that with the precious few controlled situations where fans have been allowed to directly interact with developers about the game on their terms. While fans and producers conversing about their favorite era in history or their favorite movie is relationally important, a little more open discussion about the game-development process might just speak to fan values and mitigate some of the tension.

It’s really just a matter of dealing in the currency of the era.</blockquote>Link: Guest Post: Knowledge communities: Information, interpretation, and the currency of the era on Online Fandom.

Spotted on F3:APNB.

 

[Brother None]

As eloquent as this argument is, it fails to address Bethesda on the only place they still have ears: their wallet.

Bethesda has done this little routine of hype-with-the-media and sparse-interaction-with-fans for some time now. It worked like hell for Oblivion. From Bethesda's perspective, marginalizing us and hyping their game via the media will work perfectly. And there doesn't seem to be much doubt that it will.

Hence, I kind of fail to see the point of mr Milner's arguments.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I tend to agree, a sucker is born every minute. They burned off the arena fans with MW, then burned the MW fans off with Oblivion, now they're doing the same to Fallout. Their sequels stray further from RPGs into the RPG-lite/action-adventure yet they are more and more commercially successful as they do so.

Is there a threshold?

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

As eloquent as this argument is, it fails to address Bethesda on the only place they still have ears: their wallet.

*snip*

Hence, I kind of fail to see the point of mr Milner's arguments.

True, but that's only from our "Fallout fans" perspective and all that it entails, such as wanting the best direction possible for the series. I'd say that is the single reason why we concern ourselves with such things as Fallout 3's sales and Bethesda's wallet, really.

Now, it seems to me that his point is by and large about communication theory or somesuch, with Beth's Failout being simply a subject - one which he's not actively trying to change. From a purely academic viewpoint, it doesn't matter much that their little PR scheme is commercially successful or not, it might very well still be wrong, or "behind the times", as he puts it.

And I'm inclined to agree. Bethesda's interaction with even their own fanbase is notoriously poor, even if bizarrely profitable.

 

[aXXo]

Bethesda doesn't release a lot of information about the game or make Beta tests and such because it doesn't want people knowing how the game will turn out. From what its out there you know the storyline, that its a First Person shooter that has vats stuck in the middle (replacing turn-based), and some other things (mainly telling us that this is not a fallout sequel). But even if this isn't a fallout sequel (to be a true fallout sequel you wolud have to have Van-Buren in the middle) i would like to maybe buy the game when it comes out (I like FPS's). I little more info would be good and not those articles telling us the same old thing, THIS IS NOT A FALLOUT SEQUEL.

 

[K.C. Cool]

Just like designing or building something, people tend to make a set of ideas and rules to abide to. Many times, down the road, people find something that is in conflict with this original plan. At that point, there can be a choice between changing something or leaving it alone and keep following the set of rules. No matter which way anyone goes, it must be thoughtful in the context as a whole, and if it conflicts with this, it'll either become cast out or the whole must be redesigned.

Many times people stick with their original plan for whatever reason. In this case, Beth likes the idea of presenting all their information at once and says "Here it is!" They seem to prefer not looking back on the foundation their building from saying "Oblivion worked this way, so will this game."

Could more information from the fans help them build a better game? No doubt. Would it be easier for them to simply make the game they want and say "This is it and that's how it is." No doubt.

It seems that Beth would rather turn a blind eye on their foundation simply because that's what they know works and they believe they are not wrong. Essentially, having a controlled trickle of information going in and out of Beth, at launch time they can say "This game is done and here it is." And if anyone attempts to say they are wrong, they can simply say "We made this game the way we wanted to, so we are right."

 

[goobyman]

I tend to agree, a sucker is born every minute. They burned off the arena fans with MW, then burned the MW fans off with Oblivion, now they're doing the same to Fallout. Their sequels stray further from RPGs into the RPG-lite/action-adventure yet they are more and more commercially successful as they do so.

Is there a threshold?

You're absolutely right. I have been exceptionally optimistic about this release, but the more I feel shunned by Bethesda, the more I doubt they will hold on to the true feeling and nature of the previous Fallout games.

 

[Makagulfazel]

Their sequels stray further from RPGs into the RPG-lite/action-adventure yet they are more and more commercially successful as they do so.

Which is why sometimes I get the urge to sucker punch some of my peers randomly.

"You shouldn't-a-bought that shit!"

Anyway, I love how everyone who analyzes us thinks that we want Fallout 2.5. Sure, I want a 3rd person/turn-based/RPG game, but I wouldn't mind a graphics overhaul, more features, more quests, more gameplay hours, etc.

Milner - thanks for bringing that up again. I just love hearing that shit over and over and over. I guess you wouldn't mind the next Diablo being a clone of Hellgate: London, would you?

 

[whirlingdervish]

ugh the ol' "They want Fallout 2.5"..

Considering the fact that most of us are here because we liked Fallout 1 and 2, I don't think it's really that farfetched for us to expect Fallout 3 to resemble them and contain the same gameplay and depth that we liked about the first 2.

If I wanted another FPS game with some extra shit tacked on it, to make it seem like it isn't just a rehash of the same gameplay we've seen from that genre for years, I'd go buy one from a reputable developer of FPS games, like Id, instead of a halfassed developer like Bethesda.

In this case, I want a real RPG, with depth, and stats that actually do something, and a vibrant world full of npcs that actually convince me that they are there for a reason other than to fill space.

That's what Fallout 1 and 2 had, and that's what I like.

The 10 year old graphics engine has nothing to do with my liking of those features in a RPG game, just like the ugly semi-isometric sprites of the original Command And Conquer are not why I'd want a C&C game similar to the first. (I want solid and balanced RTS gameplay no matter what it looks like)

In both cases it's the actual amount of quality gameplay that matters, and FO1 and 2 had so much of it that it was falling out of their asses (metaphorically).

Bethesdas Fallout 3, from the tiny bits of info we actually get, looks to be a very shallow gaming experience with a dull world full of unimaginitive quests, combat that has as much depth as a thimble, and idiotic npcs that are there for little more than filler.

That is not what I want from an RPG, or a Fallout title.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

well, it's like Grandstaff said to me when i was still at those boards...in so many words the game has a very Fallout-y feel, to which i replied that THAT is the f'ing problem! we don't want a game that FEELS like Fallout, we want Fallout!

and nearly everything they HAVE shown us looks like a bunch of guys who thought Fallout was cool and made their own version of it. and that's fine, in the modding community it happens all the time. except the modders don't fucking call their version "Fallout 3" FFS!!!

 

[SuAside]

And time and exposure has only resulted in a stalemate, if not worsened relations. Part of me thinks that so many fans made up their mind so long ago that the only thing that would satisfy them was a Fallout 3 that looked just like Fallout 1 & 2, with no updates or changes.

oh god, not that shit again...

while he has a few points, the above alone destroys most of his credibility.

 

[Ausir]

Especially that Van Buren was a Fallout 3 that, while not flawless, would satisfy most Fallout fans.

 

[Briosafreak]

And time and exposure has only resulted in a stalemate, if not worsened relations. Part of me thinks that so many fans made up their mind so long ago that the only thing that would satisfy them was a Fallout 3 that looked just like Fallout 1 & 2, with no updates or changes.

oh god, not that shit again...

while he has a few points, the above alone destroys most of his credibility.

That idea doesn't finish there, to understand what he wants to communicate you really need to read the rest. Just to be fair.

 

[Brother None]

And time and exposure has only resulted in a stalemate, if not worsened relations. Part of me thinks that so many fans made up their mind so long ago that the only thing that would satisfy them was a Fallout 3 that looked just like Fallout 1 & 2, with no updates or changes.

oh god, not that shit again...

while he has a few points, the above alone destroys most of his credibility.

That idea doesn't finish there, to understand what he wants to communicate you really need to read the rest. Just to be fair.

Hell, to be even fairer, people in this thread harping on that quote - without understanding the dude's knowledge of our attitude and the fact that this is just one thought in a row of many - are being goddamn stupid.

Stupid.

 

[Makagulfazel]

That idea doesn't finish there, to understand what he wants to communicate you really need to read the rest. Just to be fair.

Stupid.

Assuming that I didn't read the rest of the article isn't much brighter.

"Part" of him still thinks we're rabid assholes.

The other "part" of him thinks that Bethesda isn't releasing enough information and isn't interacting with the community properly to better the game.

So, he still thinks we're assholes. I think that is ok to dislike.

Honestly, who here has ever said they don't want Fallout 3 to be different?

 

[Ranne]

Yet show me an actual fan who would be really satisfied with a 2008 Fallout sequel that would look "just like Fallout 1 & 2, with no updates or changes". To be the fairest of them all, its a goddamn stupid statement, no matter how you look at the poster and what the row of his ideas may look like.

 

[Brother None]

"Part" of him still thinks we're rabid assholes.

Part of me thinks NMA is full of assholes too, especially when seeing this kind of nonsense spewed over a reasonable and insightful article, that is worth the read it probably didn't get.

Just. Saying.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Maybe we're just saying that there was a better way for him to share that thought without parroting Pete's bullshit about us being insane for wanting a game that has the same features and gameplay as a 10 year old game, when he probably knows better.

If you repeat something enough times on the internet, no matter what your intent, some idiot somewhere is going to take it for gospel due to that repetition and not due to it having any factual basis.

That would be why I took issue with that phrase, which is based on a fallacy that a 10 year old game is automatically inferior due to graphics alone, and commented on it with an opinion of what parts we really want to see again from that 10 year old game.

If he'd made that same point and then expanded on what we really want instead of just mentioning what most people have been told to think we want, it would have been recieved better.

As it was, he said it and then went off on the seemingly unrelated tangent of the intentional shortage of information from bethesda being somehow related to why we dont want fallout 3, instead of relating to us and other readers that he actually understands the fallacy behind that thought, and expanding upon it.

Calling us stupid when you don't know if we understood what he was saying, and based entirely on your assumption that our negative reactions to that one quote were a negative reaction to his article as a whole, would make you seem like the ass here.

you know what happens when you assume, right?

 

[Briosafreak]

Well the entirety of me thinks that by focusing in the first part of a sequence, namely 1st part, 2nd part and conclusion, you guys might be missing something.

Particularly since the conclusion is something that many of us believe is true for quite sometime now. Give it a shot without prejudice, you might read it under a different light, if you take the time.

 

[Ranne]

That idea doesn't finish there, to understand what he wants to communicate you really need to read the rest.

The rest "wonders if the problem isn’t one of information and interpretation", since "Bethesda to date has released only a small number screenshots and one teaser trailer." Frankly, I don't think that more disclosure about Fallout 3 would really help. It would likely piss more Fallout fans off, but it definitely wouldn't win them over. The core of the problem lies in the fact that they simply lack any any sufficient talent and/or dedication for making really good RPGs, let alone Fallout sequels, and no degree of information disclosure would ever fix that. It's like claiming we'd be more happy with the Bush administration if they released more information about their internal meetings that happened years ago...

It's been said that there are two things one is better off not seeing getting made, laws and sausages. I have a strong gut feeling most of us would want to add the results of Bethesda's brainstorming sessions to that list. Remember, we're not talking about Hironobu Sakaguchi making a bad design decision. The name is Tod "my bed is awesome and I just read Harry Potter" Howard, and the guy still believes that POS Terminator FPS was the hottest thing to ever hit the gaming market since Pong got released back in 1972. Forgive me for remaining skeptical, but I still believe it's way better than being naive.