Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Stopped reading here. And it's enough to make up my mind: he's a suckup strawman bitch.Brother None said:
RM Milner on Fallout fans again
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Yeah, ok, that's it, you idiots either read the whole thing, try to understand it and where he's coming from, or shut the hell up.
This is a well thought-out intelligent piece (if succinct). You are reacting to it as if it is GameSpy's Delsyn's usual bullshit.
If you don't want to read, fine, then don't read, don't smear your idiotic conclusions of your incomplete read of one statement - taken out of context - all over our forums, please.
I will consider continuing such idiocy as trolling. Either discuss the piece or don't. Keep your half-wit brain to yourself.
You know, this is exactly the kind of shit people write us off on: want to point out that journalists like the Gameplayer.com.au guys slobber all over Bethesda and are about as objective as my asshole? Fine. Want to write off an idiot like Delsyn for his obsession with Fallout fans? Fine. Show that exact same, almost base instinct reaction to balanced pieces based on prolonged and intelligent study? That's being a slavering retard.
I don't like slavering retards.
This is a well thought-out intelligent piece (if succinct). You are reacting to it as if it is GameSpy's Delsyn's usual bullshit.
If you don't want to read, fine, then don't read, don't smear your idiotic conclusions of your incomplete read of one statement - taken out of context - all over our forums, please.
I will consider continuing such idiocy as trolling. Either discuss the piece or don't. Keep your half-wit brain to yourself.
You know, this is exactly the kind of shit people write us off on: want to point out that journalists like the Gameplayer.com.au guys slobber all over Bethesda and are about as objective as my asshole? Fine. Want to write off an idiot like Delsyn for his obsession with Fallout fans? Fine. Show that exact same, almost base instinct reaction to balanced pieces based on prolonged and intelligent study? That's being a slavering retard.
I don't like slavering retards.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
What's FAIR is that the other part of him is in no direct contradiction to the first part, so he, as a WHOLE, thinks fallouts fan wants a Fallout 2+1...Briosafreak said:
Will do. Try to not set my mind first too.Brother None said:
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Read the thing calmly before saying silly things Morbus.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Ok, I read the whole thing.
First of all we are here to talk about Fallout, so let's leave the sophistic physiological crap for another occasion. The guy has some points right. He writes well to, I like the reading. But he points out so many things only to leave them unexplored it feels like he isn't really saying anything at all. He could go on about how information and interpretation play different roles in the PR game, he could go on about why the fans were defensive in the first place, he could go on about why bethesda is upholding information, or who's ready to accept the "other side". Instead, he chooses to ignore all those things and focus on telling Bethesda (and other companies) to open themselves. In the end, he doesn't really say anything. He didn't say that it's Bethesda who has the whole "currency of the era", knowledge [about the game]. He didn't say information is not the only thing that can be traded, interpretation is a valuable asset too, that can be traded. What he did say is that he thinks Fallout fans want a copy of Fallout, and that I can't tolerate.
This is not trolling. It's me telling the guy to get his facts straight or fuck off.
Prejudice? So you think seeing "the only thing that would satisfy them was a Fallout 3 that looked just like Fallout 1 & 2" as bad is prejudice? 
First of all we are here to talk about Fallout, so let's leave the sophistic physiological crap for another occasion. The guy has some points right. He writes well to, I like the reading. But he points out so many things only to leave them unexplored it feels like he isn't really saying anything at all. He could go on about how information and interpretation play different roles in the PR game, he could go on about why the fans were defensive in the first place, he could go on about why bethesda is upholding information, or who's ready to accept the "other side". Instead, he chooses to ignore all those things and focus on telling Bethesda (and other companies) to open themselves. In the end, he doesn't really say anything. He didn't say that it's Bethesda who has the whole "currency of the era", knowledge [about the game]. He didn't say information is not the only thing that can be traded, interpretation is a valuable asset too, that can be traded. What he did say is that he thinks Fallout fans want a copy of Fallout, and that I can't tolerate.
This is not trolling. It's me telling the guy to get his facts straight or fuck off.
Done, as I said. I'm not one to jump to conclusions. Well, not usually. Reading the whole thing didn't change my opinion. I know it's not the focus of the article, but if in a job interview I tell the interviewer that he's an asshole, and even though that's not the focus of the interview, I sure as hell won't get the job, no matter how good I am.Briosafreak said:
I'm still reading the thread so I reply in bitsBriosafreak said:
Prejudice? So you think seeing "the only thing that would satisfy them was a Fallout 3 that looked just like Fallout 1 & 2" as bad is prejudice? QFTRanne said:
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
do you want us to discuss the article or would you rather we just didn't bash his points because you like his conclusion?
this is blatantly bullshit.
They didn't have to defend themselves when they first bought the license, and the admins here made sure to enforce a wait and see (and dont bash them just for being Bethesda) stance among the posters..
We aren't the only community out there, but we're the biggest and possibly the most influential, so I wonder what community he's talking about if not us.
That line of thinking leads me to wonder if his knowledge of this subject is based only on the Beth forums..
back to why that's bullshit tho:
Their efforts at self defence began shortly after the trailer came out and the first mag screenies appeared that hooked a huge part of Fallout's following back into anticipation of a sequel after the utter failure of FOBOS.
After the first scans went up and people started getting blacklisted and receiving legal threats, we realized that they were going to go through the same exact PR motions that they went through with Oblivion.( to sell us shit as if it were gold, and possibly trample a beloved franchise in the process of showing us nothing of importance in the months prior to release)
Then began the slow and painful process of them not giving us a fucking scrap of information in order to facilitate the handout of a couple of screenies to a few hundred magazines so they could all claim to have an exclusive.
When it became painfully obvious to Fallout fans that we were being dicked around, THAT was when Bethesda "had to" go on the defensive.
Right off the bat, they could have had perfectly useful and positive dialogue with us regarding the game, and they chose to go the other road, of doing whatever the hell they want and hiding it from us till the last minute.
If he'd done his homework a bit better, no part of him would think that we want Fallout 1&2 remade with no changes.
He'd also not be of the opinion that fans were initially hostile towards Bethesda for no reason, forcing them to act defensively and have no contact with us.
They didn't want contact with us, just like they don't care about what we want from Fallout 3.
this is blatantly bullshit.
They didn't have to defend themselves when they first bought the license, and the admins here made sure to enforce a wait and see (and dont bash them just for being Bethesda) stance among the posters..
We aren't the only community out there, but we're the biggest and possibly the most influential, so I wonder what community he's talking about if not us.
That line of thinking leads me to wonder if his knowledge of this subject is based only on the Beth forums..
back to why that's bullshit tho:
Their efforts at self defence began shortly after the trailer came out and the first mag screenies appeared that hooked a huge part of Fallout's following back into anticipation of a sequel after the utter failure of FOBOS.
After the first scans went up and people started getting blacklisted and receiving legal threats, we realized that they were going to go through the same exact PR motions that they went through with Oblivion.( to sell us shit as if it were gold, and possibly trample a beloved franchise in the process of showing us nothing of importance in the months prior to release)
Then began the slow and painful process of them not giving us a fucking scrap of information in order to facilitate the handout of a couple of screenies to a few hundred magazines so they could all claim to have an exclusive.
When it became painfully obvious to Fallout fans that we were being dicked around, THAT was when Bethesda "had to" go on the defensive.
Right off the bat, they could have had perfectly useful and positive dialogue with us regarding the game, and they chose to go the other road, of doing whatever the hell they want and hiding it from us till the last minute.
If he'd done his homework a bit better, no part of him would think that we want Fallout 1&2 remade with no changes.
He'd also not be of the opinion that fans were initially hostile towards Bethesda for no reason, forcing them to act defensively and have no contact with us.
They didn't want contact with us, just like they don't care about what we want from Fallout 3.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Actually they did come around here a bit, but I guess the higher ranks inside bethesda told them to back off and stop talking because we were devils or some stuff like that...
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
that's better than wishing we'd die of a horrible disease, but just barely.
BTW, I agree with a lot of what is said in this article, and I do find it to be much more intelligently composed than most of the reading material we find in the news section here..
BTW, I agree with a lot of what is said in this article, and I do find it to be much more intelligently composed than most of the reading material we find in the news section here..
Since I see that distinguishing "administrator" right under your nick, I'll applaud you tactful plea for a rational discussion and shut myself up.
That being said, a much braver man would consider your mentioned dislikes and express his sympathies over your need to shave yourself in front of a mirror each morning. Not me though. It looks like I'm just your regular kissass after all.
Ranne said:Since I see that distinguishing "administrator" right under your nick, I'll applaud you tactful plea for a rational discussion and shut myself up.
That being said, a much braver man would consider your mentioned dislikes and express his sympathies over your need to shave yourself in front of a mirror each morning. Not me though. It looks like I'm just your regular kissass after all.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Honestly, I don't.
You'd have to be pretty dimwitted not to understand my choice of words, tho'
whirlingdervish said:
Oh, you want to discuss the article now? That'd be nice, I've seen very little of it so far.
whirlingdervish said:
Being on the defensive does not equal "have to defend themselves".
The fact is that Bethesda has been on the defensive since day 1. Did they have to be? Dunno. 's not part of the scope of his study, either, so that statement was probably ill chosen.
whirlingdervish said:
You don't remember the paper we pointed to a few weeks ago by his hand, based on a meticulous study of the BGSF?
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
I knew he was talking about the Beth forums in parts of his article and I read the other paper you mention, but that forum doesn't actually represent the group that he mentions in this article: "The Fallout fanbase".
I was under the impression that he might have looked farther than the bethesda forums to define "the Fallout Fanbase", because I tend to give people who can write in a legible fashion the benefit of the doubt whenever I can.
If I was mistaken, and he's just referring to the few people who will put up with the fascist bullshit on the Beth forums, or even go there, then he still needs to do his homework before calling THAT the Fallout Fanbase or the Fallout Community..
It might be a part of the overall Fanbase but it does not represent ALL of the fans of Fallout, or even the more vocal ones, which he also mentions.
Of course, I'm probably just taking THAT out of context too..
Silly me.
I'll read this thru again tonight when I get home and see if I can come up with any other parts to disect and discuss.
I was under the impression that he might have looked farther than the bethesda forums to define "the Fallout Fanbase", because I tend to give people who can write in a legible fashion the benefit of the doubt whenever I can.
If I was mistaken, and he's just referring to the few people who will put up with the fascist bullshit on the Beth forums, or even go there, then he still needs to do his homework before calling THAT the Fallout Fanbase or the Fallout Community..
It might be a part of the overall Fanbase but it does not represent ALL of the fans of Fallout, or even the more vocal ones, which he also mentions.
Of course, I'm probably just taking THAT out of context too..
Silly me.
I'll read this thru again tonight when I get home and see if I can come up with any other parts to disect and discuss.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Yep, you are. Not conscientiously, I understand that, but you are, again. I'll get back to this tomorrow.
whirlingdervish said:
Uh-huh.
Except that you just argued using NMA for said representation would be fine, even though it wouldn't, since BGSF is a much more logical flocking place for Fallout fans of all colours, rather than just the NMA/Codex/DaC/GameFAQs type.
whirlingdervish said:
It's not relevant if it refers to ALL the fans, since his argument is about fan interaction in general with specific examples from BGSF, not about the thoughts and attitudes of ALL Fallout fans.
Hey NMA community-
I'm Ryan M. Milner. The one who wrote my M.A. thesis on the BGSF forums and the blog post in question. I'm glad to see that it's spawned discussion, even if one sentence has caused some controversy. I figured it wouldn't hurt to get in the discussion a bit.
First and foremost, I'd love for anyone who has the time to read through the whole thesis, or at least thumb through it. Briosafreak kindly posted a copy of it on his blog:
http://fallout3.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/thesispdf.pdf
I hope that if you read it you will find it a fair characterization of the relationship between Fallout fans and producers.
As far as the offending comment, sorry to upset anyone. I figured I might get some flak if I included it, but I did so because my observations led me to believe that some fans doomed Bethesda from the start (even if rightfully so) and would rather Van Buren or Fan Made Fallout any day than a next-gen game (once again, even if rightfully so).
But like I said, that's just part of me (an outsider who's never been an active participant in the fan community, though I love the games). I was intentionally moving from a broad generalization (that many other than myself make, as you all know) and on to a more nuanced discussion of the issues. A discussion that advocates Bethesda opening up the game-development process to fans. I'm sorry if anyone got hung up on that initial generalization, and hope that you can forgive me enough to move on to my conclusions about fan/producer interaction. If you'd like to discuss things further, I'd love to. Feel free to PM. I've really liked the feedback I've seen on here covering issues other than the comment in question.
One last note. Do I think you're rabid? Yes, but I love it. This kind of tenacity is encouraging. It shows me that even in the face of the most insular producers, fans in this era are making their voice heard. It may be a while until the industry sees cultural or financial incentive to listen, but there'd be no progress if fans weren't "rabid" enough to defend the integrity of things they love.
But rabid or not, I definitely wouldn't call you assholes.
I'm Ryan M. Milner. The one who wrote my M.A. thesis on the BGSF forums and the blog post in question. I'm glad to see that it's spawned discussion, even if one sentence has caused some controversy. I figured it wouldn't hurt to get in the discussion a bit.
First and foremost, I'd love for anyone who has the time to read through the whole thesis, or at least thumb through it. Briosafreak kindly posted a copy of it on his blog:
http://fallout3.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/thesispdf.pdf
I hope that if you read it you will find it a fair characterization of the relationship between Fallout fans and producers.
As far as the offending comment, sorry to upset anyone. I figured I might get some flak if I included it, but I did so because my observations led me to believe that some fans doomed Bethesda from the start (even if rightfully so) and would rather Van Buren or Fan Made Fallout any day than a next-gen game (once again, even if rightfully so).
But like I said, that's just part of me (an outsider who's never been an active participant in the fan community, though I love the games). I was intentionally moving from a broad generalization (that many other than myself make, as you all know) and on to a more nuanced discussion of the issues. A discussion that advocates Bethesda opening up the game-development process to fans. I'm sorry if anyone got hung up on that initial generalization, and hope that you can forgive me enough to move on to my conclusions about fan/producer interaction. If you'd like to discuss things further, I'd love to. Feel free to PM. I've really liked the feedback I've seen on here covering issues other than the comment in question.
One last note. Do I think you're rabid? Yes, but I love it. This kind of tenacity is encouraging. It shows me that even in the face of the most insular producers, fans in this era are making their voice heard. It may be a while until the industry sees cultural or financial incentive to listen, but there'd be no progress if fans weren't "rabid" enough to defend the integrity of things they love.
But rabid or not, I definitely wouldn't call you assholes.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I never really took the usual "rabid" accusation for an insult Although most people surely mean it as one.
Although most people surely mean it as one.I think that is where the mistake and the misgivings reside, particularly in the case of Van Buren. It was recognizable as a Fallout game, but it was not just like 'Fallout 1 and 2 without changes or updates'. Whereas there are many things from FO 1 and 2 that I'm sure many of us would be fine with if they remained unchanged, we do not abhor change and update. The problem with Fallout 3 is that it represents more of an upheaval rather than updates and changes within recognizable parameters as Van Buren seemed to be. First Person is not an update of Third Person, and if changing every game to whatever seems to be the most popular perspective at the time is 'next-gen', then I'd gladly stick to previous-gen.themilner said:
I commend you on the thesis. It's good for the most part and is generally written as reasonably neutral. Also I trust that you weren't trying to be offensive with that statement, but it doesn't make the statement true. The neutrality got a bit off track on that one. It's also simply a mispresentation. I still go to the Bethesda forums and I don't see anyone calling for a carbon copy of Fallout 1 and 2 there either.
I think that's where a misreading comes into it. This just occured to me. Some of us seem to have taken your 'Fallout 1 and 2 without changes or update' comment to mean that we'd rather have that than anything. That would be false as far as I call tell. However, if you mean that we'd rather have that than what some of us see as the FPS bastardization of the franchise that Fallout 3 represents, I think that has some merit. I guess the problem is that the way it's phrased seems a bit iffy and falsely generalizing.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Also, I don't understand how any reasonable fan can forgive bethesda for killing point and click mechanics and the description box... That alone trumps any other complain one might have about FOE.
well, as any good (or at least trying to be good) writer it does not hurt to use one or more polarizing (as in "bold") statements. this was one, methinks. it just CRIES out for interaction, even if this interaction consists of misunderstandings or tl;dr-flames.
the aforementioned rabidity has MUCH to do with the information deprivation policy. we are fallout fans, and avid ones - we are not fans of todd howard and/or peter hines. sadly, all we get to see are those 2 people.
as i see it, the original subject of your paper is/was how interaction works and how developers could benefit from opening up to their respective fanbases. seemingly a good choice: an active fanbase, a well-known developer, some interactive <strike>shenanigans</strike> polls and votings in their fora. plus you seem to like the fallout lore and games. looks reasonable enough to use this as environment. but my point is: that fanbas and developer could have been others, and besides that, the "who" in this study is not the major point. so - argueing about fallout-fan specifics is less useful here than actually discussing whats IN the paper. correct me if i am wrong, i have only read the excerpts until now. i will read the paper.
in any case, thank you for your time, and participating in the discussion!
the aforementioned rabidity has MUCH to do with the information deprivation policy. we are fallout fans, and avid ones - we are not fans of todd howard and/or peter hines. sadly, all we get to see are those 2 people.
as i see it, the original subject of your paper is/was how interaction works and how developers could benefit from opening up to their respective fanbases. seemingly a good choice: an active fanbase, a well-known developer, some interactive <strike>shenanigans</strike> polls and votings in their fora. plus you seem to like the fallout lore and games. looks reasonable enough to use this as environment. but my point is: that fanbas and developer could have been others, and besides that, the "who" in this study is not the major point. so - argueing about fallout-fan specifics is less useful here than actually discussing whats IN the paper. correct me if i am wrong, i have only read the excerpts until now. i will read the paper.
in any case, thank you for your time, and participating in the discussion!
ookami said:
That makes sense. From there, we get into the tricky issue of what exactly would be acceptable to change. I'd love to hear what NMA thinks on this, since it was something I never got a consensus on as I observed (it may be that there isn't one). Some seem to think that gameplay mechanics (tb, iso, text box, point an click, etc.) would be the most important to keep similar to the past. Others feel like it's more an issue of tone (plot, choice and consequence, dialogue, dark humor, etc.). And I can't get away from this, but some people may just want all that left alone
, which I guess would mean a Fallout with more graphical polish and a larger world to roam in, but not much else different. So what do you guys think would be the most acceptable to update?Also, @ Brother None. I've been thinking a lot about your original critique. That Bethesda has no financial incentive to listen to fans. You really do seem to be right there. It's like they've had to reinvent their fanbase with every new TES game. Yet they still make skads of cash. Something of an anomaly. If Marvel overhauled Spider-man the same way every four years, would they be so lucky? I wonder if isolating their fans will eventually catch up to them, financially speaking.
Edit: @ horst. And if we are to discuss what's actually in the paper, not Fallout specifically, then let me point out that this whole thread has been about information and interpretation. Which is encouraging for me to see. It means that maybe my general conclusions about fan interaction weren't utter crap.
Not as long as magazines and game sites proclaim them to be geniuses.