I really appreciate that Ryan M. Milner came in to clear up some things. Notice how everyone has calmed down worked everything out? This is something Bethesda should do, but they don't. That's half the tension, but it's not in Bethesda's interest to resolve it.
RM Milner on Fallout fans again
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
K.C. Cool said:
I agree. I remember when Beth devs rarely came here, they never were harassed by us. Remember when that guy from Gamespy (or was it another site?) said that we should all catch a horrible disease and die? We fought fire with fire there. Milner came here and we had a pretty civilized dialog with him. What was the last time a Bethesda dev ever came in NMA to talk about Fallout 3?
welsh
Junkmaster
You guys don't get it.
Bethesda wouldn't come here because we challenge them for the idea of what fallout is supposed to be. NMA and other fan sites sustain an idea of fallout that is based on Fallout 1 and 2, and somewhat on Fallout Tactics and a bit of Van Buren. FOBOS completely fucked that idea and got slammed by us.
Bethesda's Fallout 3 looks a lot more like FOBOS than Fallout 1,2 or tactics.
They know that, we know that. What's there to talk about?
What Bethesda wants is the control of the idea of what Fallout is supposed to be. We want what we expect Fallout to be. We - Bethesda and the fallout community, suffer from what divorce lawyers call Irreconcilable differences. They want what they want, we want what we want, and the two won't meet.
Why we want it is because we love what fallout is about.
WHy they want what they want is because- (1) its cheaper, (2) they know how to do it, (3) they have other fans they seek to get, and (4) they think we don't matter.
Now we can comment and criticize them. And if they are a bunch of dumb asses, they won't listen and their game won't look like Fallout, and the Fallout fans- both at the sites and the broader community- will say, "What the fuck are you thinking, Beth?"
But Bethesda is not worried because they can manufacture the hype and have a fan base they can rely on. They got resources we don't.
But what if Bethesda does listen to the fans? Then they make a game that is more Fallout-like, without really being a fallout game. Its Half-Life with Fallout elements, or Oblivion with Fallout elements, or its Max Payne with Fallout elements. Which will please more fans and give them better control over the idea of what is fallout.
This is why I have been very reluctant to voice criticisms of Fallout or offer suggestions. Sorry, I want those fuckers to burn. I am not interested in their profit or their motivation. They piss me off. I would rather see Fallout 3 crash than to see a Fallout 4 that looks like what Bethesda wants Fallout 3 to be.
The issue is one of compromise and conflict. How far are we willing to go to compromise our values, and how far is Bethesda willing to go without compromising their vision. Where there is no compromise, there is conflict.
They are strong- they own the license, they have the development staff, they have a big group of fans that will eat anything Bethesda offers, and they have a motive in profit.
We have our rabid nature and our commitment to an idea. Plus we have the ability to cuss them up and down for being the pimps they are.
How do you hurt Bethesda? By kicking them where it counts- their wallet. Word of mouth. We helped kill FOBOS, we can do the same to Fallout 3.
And if Fallout 3 dies, what then? Maybe someone will have the gumption to try to do it right the next time- ideally some small developer that has the interest and talent and appreciation to make Fallout right. That's what I want.
Bethesda wouldn't come here because we challenge them for the idea of what fallout is supposed to be. NMA and other fan sites sustain an idea of fallout that is based on Fallout 1 and 2, and somewhat on Fallout Tactics and a bit of Van Buren. FOBOS completely fucked that idea and got slammed by us.
Bethesda's Fallout 3 looks a lot more like FOBOS than Fallout 1,2 or tactics.
They know that, we know that. What's there to talk about?
What Bethesda wants is the control of the idea of what Fallout is supposed to be. We want what we expect Fallout to be. We - Bethesda and the fallout community, suffer from what divorce lawyers call Irreconcilable differences. They want what they want, we want what we want, and the two won't meet.
Why we want it is because we love what fallout is about.
WHy they want what they want is because- (1) its cheaper, (2) they know how to do it, (3) they have other fans they seek to get, and (4) they think we don't matter.
Now we can comment and criticize them. And if they are a bunch of dumb asses, they won't listen and their game won't look like Fallout, and the Fallout fans- both at the sites and the broader community- will say, "What the fuck are you thinking, Beth?"
But Bethesda is not worried because they can manufacture the hype and have a fan base they can rely on. They got resources we don't.
But what if Bethesda does listen to the fans? Then they make a game that is more Fallout-like, without really being a fallout game. Its Half-Life with Fallout elements, or Oblivion with Fallout elements, or its Max Payne with Fallout elements. Which will please more fans and give them better control over the idea of what is fallout.
This is why I have been very reluctant to voice criticisms of Fallout or offer suggestions. Sorry, I want those fuckers to burn. I am not interested in their profit or their motivation. They piss me off. I would rather see Fallout 3 crash than to see a Fallout 4 that looks like what Bethesda wants Fallout 3 to be.
The issue is one of compromise and conflict. How far are we willing to go to compromise our values, and how far is Bethesda willing to go without compromising their vision. Where there is no compromise, there is conflict.
They are strong- they own the license, they have the development staff, they have a big group of fans that will eat anything Bethesda offers, and they have a motive in profit.
We have our rabid nature and our commitment to an idea. Plus we have the ability to cuss them up and down for being the pimps they are.
How do you hurt Bethesda? By kicking them where it counts- their wallet. Word of mouth. We helped kill FOBOS, we can do the same to Fallout 3.
And if Fallout 3 dies, what then? Maybe someone will have the gumption to try to do it right the next time- ideally some small developer that has the interest and talent and appreciation to make Fallout right. That's what I want.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
welsh said:
Actually, they don't know how to do it but whatever. I get the feeling they don't even know what a dungeon crawler is. That's because they put dungeons in Fallout 3, because they somehow find dungeons are an inherent factor of RPG design. Somehow... They really don't know why or how, but they put them in anyway, just in case. Besides, it helps them "balance" the game and it makes things easier. Because while the player is bored busy cleaning some dungeon, he won't be <s>spending</s> playing dialogs and <s>expendable</s> hand-made content... So Fallout 3 becomes a dungeon crawler because those asses don't know what a dungeon crawler is.
I'm definitely happy with the way the dialogue has gone too. The only problem is you guys gave me way TOO much information and interpretation to respond to with any kind of timeliness. So forgive my lack of reply. I've got the page bookmarked and have been reading through posts. I too wonder what regular interaction with a Bethesda dev (or devs) would look like on NMA.
Other than that, I read this month's issue of Game Informer magazine and there was an interview with Todd Howard where he was apparently approached with "NMA-like fervor" or something. At least that's the way the interviewer put it. This made me curious, do you guys really think you're as intense as everyone claims? Are you happy with the rep, or do you think it's unfairly put upon you?
Anyway, reading that made me understand a little better why some NMA posters get defensive when outsiders like me pop up and make generalizations. I get just as defensive when I feel like people are telling me there's no academic merit in studying game fans. So no troubles for any disagreement.
Other than that, I read this month's issue of Game Informer magazine and there was an interview with Todd Howard where he was apparently approached with "NMA-like fervor" or something. At least that's the way the interviewer put it. This made me curious, do you guys really think you're as intense as everyone claims? Are you happy with the rep, or do you think it's unfairly put upon you?
Anyway, reading that made me understand a little better why some NMA posters get defensive when outsiders like me pop up and make generalizations. I get just as defensive when I feel like people are telling me there's no academic merit in studying game fans. So no troubles for any disagreement.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Spot on.welsh said:
That's why there's no engagement. That's why there was never an attempt to reach out to the communnity. That's why they are so tight-lipped. That's why they don't release demos or gameplay videos. That's why every little nugget of info needs to pass through the filter of Todd and Pete Hines.
I couldn't agree more. I have no intentions of buying or playing Fallout 3 at this point. What pisses me off are the people who slag Oblivion to no end, but will happily line back up for Bethesda's next offering - and bitch about how shallow it is.
Are you going to be like Pavlov's dog or are you going to have some standards?
That's really all there is to it. It doesn't have to be called Fallout to embody the underlying RPG fundamentals that Fallout adhered to.
welsh
Junkmaster
In response to Milner-
Its foolish to think that there isn't merit in studying game fans. The computer gaming industry is a rising industry that makes billions in profits. Like literature and cinema, it reflects popular culture. But just as there as there is good cinema and good literature as well as bad cinema and bad lit, so games must be held to standards of quality.
Fallout has be considered one of the great CRPGs. Communities like NMA have survived despite the fact that the last real Fallout game was made a decade ago. While one can measure a game's success in terms of dollar profits, shouldn't we also measure a game's quality by the appreciation of its fans?
Gaming fans are often technically sophisticated and have access to media through the internet. Of course they are going to collectivize and share ideas.
One of the better sides of living in a more globalized world is the ease in which people can communicate and exchange ideas. How do such groups organize- overcome the collective action problem? What are the institutions? How is heirarchy created in such communities comprised of people with ideas? How is the agenda set or how do agendas get created.
NMA, for instance, is a community made up of many people from across the world that share similar interests in Fallout. I think its safe to say that, while much of our present community is European and American, our members cross the world. What unites them are shared ideas and a common appreciation for a game.
But just as fans are going to collectivize, organize and articulate their opinions, and often reach some sense of constructions based on shared understanding, they are also fundamentally linked to an industry that seeks to profit from them and, if possible, exploit them.
That relationship is interesting because it involves two different bodies, each with its own resources and ability to overcome collective action, and with its own motivations and preferences. There are shared and conflicting interests between gamer communities and gaming firms. How do the two communities find compromise or conflict? How can they coordinate and share ideas? How do they relate?
Those are interesting questions not only for the media industry, but for how we understand culture. As an instructor, I have had students do papers on the role of the internet in organizing resistance in developing countries, or how groups of individuals with shared expertise shape political agendas. Why not study gamers and the gaming industry?
To answer your question- I personally don't mind us being hardcore fans. But I'm not keen on being judged by someone that doesn't understand us. Judgment without understanding is cheap. Rabid suggests an animals with rabies, a virus that leads to a violent insanity in dogs. It reminds me of Cujo, the loving dog that goes mad. We're intense, but not insane. We wouldn't have lasted this long if we were rabid. We're passionate about Fallout and we're dedicated to appreciating what many of us felt was a high standard in the gaming industy, something that rose to the level of art.
The question then is why are we called rabid? Does it communicate an image and serve a purpose? People call us rabid and we are immediately pushed to a fringe- a bunch of insane fans whose opinions are radical (or reactionary) and thus not worth being considered, at least not by more moderate fans. It is a means of marginalizing opinion that is not appreciated by others, a form of ad hominem attack. You say it enough and people start to believe it. But who benefits?
For example, we got slammed about a year ago for being rabid by some folks who wanted to sell console games. We're generally opposed to "dumbing" down Fallout to console play and prefer the more sophisticated play of Computer gaming. Surprise? One has to understand language not only by what is said, but who says it. Then you can understand why something is said.
What people don't like is that we're critical. We've always been critical. We have been willing to be critical of both posters and developers. I like that. Criticism not only means that standards are required but it also means we're independent and autonomous. We're not going to kiss your ass because you're a developer. If you want your ass kissed, go somewhere else. We're not going to sell out and we're not going to be bought. There are plenty of people who came here from gaming firms that we like and we gave them shit for some pretty stupid ideas. So yes, you've got to be a bit thick skinned and willing to accept criticism because we can be a bit harsh.
But then- do you really want constructive criticism or something else?
This is a market place of ideas, and if your ideas suck, we'll tell you.
And that's a beautiful thing. It's true. If we like your ideas, we'll probably tell you and the appreciation will be honest. We won't feed your ego, but when its won, our praise is genuine.
NMA gets treated with a bit of hostility and is sometimes we're defamed, but I'm very proud of this community and what we do here.
Its foolish to think that there isn't merit in studying game fans. The computer gaming industry is a rising industry that makes billions in profits. Like literature and cinema, it reflects popular culture. But just as there as there is good cinema and good literature as well as bad cinema and bad lit, so games must be held to standards of quality.
Fallout has be considered one of the great CRPGs. Communities like NMA have survived despite the fact that the last real Fallout game was made a decade ago. While one can measure a game's success in terms of dollar profits, shouldn't we also measure a game's quality by the appreciation of its fans?
Gaming fans are often technically sophisticated and have access to media through the internet. Of course they are going to collectivize and share ideas.
One of the better sides of living in a more globalized world is the ease in which people can communicate and exchange ideas. How do such groups organize- overcome the collective action problem? What are the institutions? How is heirarchy created in such communities comprised of people with ideas? How is the agenda set or how do agendas get created.
NMA, for instance, is a community made up of many people from across the world that share similar interests in Fallout. I think its safe to say that, while much of our present community is European and American, our members cross the world. What unites them are shared ideas and a common appreciation for a game.
But just as fans are going to collectivize, organize and articulate their opinions, and often reach some sense of constructions based on shared understanding, they are also fundamentally linked to an industry that seeks to profit from them and, if possible, exploit them.
That relationship is interesting because it involves two different bodies, each with its own resources and ability to overcome collective action, and with its own motivations and preferences. There are shared and conflicting interests between gamer communities and gaming firms. How do the two communities find compromise or conflict? How can they coordinate and share ideas? How do they relate?
Those are interesting questions not only for the media industry, but for how we understand culture. As an instructor, I have had students do papers on the role of the internet in organizing resistance in developing countries, or how groups of individuals with shared expertise shape political agendas. Why not study gamers and the gaming industry?
To answer your question- I personally don't mind us being hardcore fans. But I'm not keen on being judged by someone that doesn't understand us. Judgment without understanding is cheap. Rabid suggests an animals with rabies, a virus that leads to a violent insanity in dogs. It reminds me of Cujo, the loving dog that goes mad. We're intense, but not insane. We wouldn't have lasted this long if we were rabid. We're passionate about Fallout and we're dedicated to appreciating what many of us felt was a high standard in the gaming industy, something that rose to the level of art.
The question then is why are we called rabid? Does it communicate an image and serve a purpose? People call us rabid and we are immediately pushed to a fringe- a bunch of insane fans whose opinions are radical (or reactionary) and thus not worth being considered, at least not by more moderate fans. It is a means of marginalizing opinion that is not appreciated by others, a form of ad hominem attack. You say it enough and people start to believe it. But who benefits?
For example, we got slammed about a year ago for being rabid by some folks who wanted to sell console games. We're generally opposed to "dumbing" down Fallout to console play and prefer the more sophisticated play of Computer gaming. Surprise? One has to understand language not only by what is said, but who says it. Then you can understand why something is said.
What people don't like is that we're critical. We've always been critical. We have been willing to be critical of both posters and developers. I like that. Criticism not only means that standards are required but it also means we're independent and autonomous. We're not going to kiss your ass because you're a developer. If you want your ass kissed, go somewhere else. We're not going to sell out and we're not going to be bought. There are plenty of people who came here from gaming firms that we like and we gave them shit for some pretty stupid ideas. So yes, you've got to be a bit thick skinned and willing to accept criticism because we can be a bit harsh.
But then- do you really want constructive criticism or something else?
This is a market place of ideas, and if your ideas suck, we'll tell you.
And that's a beautiful thing. It's true. If we like your ideas, we'll probably tell you and the appreciation will be honest. We won't feed your ego, but when its won, our praise is genuine.
NMA gets treated with a bit of hostility and is sometimes we're defamed, but I'm very proud of this community and what we do here.
themilner said:
Interesting article. I got a good chuckle over your comparison of Fantasy Football geeks to Dungeons and Dragons geeks. Some subversive D&D player should find a way to introduce D20s into fantasy football, our revenge would be complete.
As far as people being defensive over that particular comment goes, I would say it's merely because we've heard somewhat similar statements from many poorly written game previews. Reading it again triggers a "brain shut down, prepare riposte" response in many of us. Also, I doubt any of us here would want a sequel that doesn't expand on what the first 2 games excelled at. When I first heard news of a new Fallout I was optimistic. I thought that even in first person and real time with pause the game could work. On the information we've been given though It's obvious that the turned based iso fundamentals have been scrapped not for a reworked replacement that remains true to the originals, but for some RPG-lite combat which is the antithesis of Fallout.
Now are we intense or rabid? I would say no, but we are passionate. We are also seething with impotent rage over Fallout 3. To spin an analogy to better explain how I (and many of us, I assume, feel) think of it this way: Your grandfather was one of the world's leading proponents of a healthy diet, and after a long and fruitful life he died with dignity, leaving an unmatched legacy. Now a decade later, some necrophiliac necromancer from Kraft foods found some legal loophole and gained the rights to his remains. After digging him up and humping his corpse for awhile, he was resurrected and made the new spokesperson for Cheez Whizz. Now all we can do is tell anyone willing to listen, "That is not what he stood for!"
On bethesda and their control of FO3 information:
If they were developing a game in an original IP I think they would have a lot to gain by sharing more information. As it stands though any bit of information they release will come here and be analyzed, and since they're not making a Fallout game that most of us are interested in new info will only result in negative PR. They'll get the same positive previews from all of the major gaming sites regardless of how much solid info their is.
Now if you were to look at the Fallout 1 forum pre-release it was an entirely different informational climate. The developers were interacting with the fans on a daily basis, replying to posts constantly, and starting new posts looking for suggestions and seeking criticism. Those who frequented those boards were whipped into such a frenzy by the great fan service that before the game was even released there was a fan community with a website and everything (the unwashed villagers) And now theres a special encounter in one of the fallout games (I can't remember if it was 1 or 2) where you actual bump into the unwashed. Immortalized in your favorite game, hows that for fan respect?
And Welsh, I'm totally with you on hitting Bethesda in the wallet. I'm all up for a FO3 boycott. Unfortunately everywhere you go you see comments like "I don't like what bethesda is doing but I'm such a huge fallout fan I've already preordered" I wish people would understand that If they were such huge fans of the originals, the last thing they should do is preorder or spend any cash on FO3 all.
A World At War
A World At War
welsh:
That's profiling by the genteel.
Question , is the animal imagery that is ""rabid"" , a back handed endearment or the dehumanization more characteristic of war.
Perhaps it is merely advertising by another means, still, it has all the teeth of a propaganda war.
The jargon of nex gen third party agents, (some call them game journalists, some say - guerilla marketers), is the conduit for the Newspeak dictates of game company PR offensives.
Newspeak? The information technology exemplified by George Orwell is part of the rule set for the marketing road.
Consider on the way to talking up their game, Bethesda has effected to rewrite history, ... that quip that FO wasn't first person because of the limits of '90's technology.
If the conflict / dystopian imagery seems over stressed, consider it the combat fatigue of a 21st Century consumer.
4too
A World At War
welsh:
That's profiling by the genteel.
Question , is the animal imagery that is ""rabid"" , a back handed endearment or the dehumanization more characteristic of war.
Perhaps it is merely advertising by another means, still, it has all the teeth of a propaganda war.
The jargon of nex gen third party agents, (some call them game journalists, some say - guerilla marketers), is the conduit for the Newspeak dictates of game company PR offensives.
Newspeak? The information technology exemplified by George Orwell is part of the rule set for the marketing road.
Consider on the way to talking up their game, Bethesda has effected to rewrite history, ... that quip that FO wasn't first person because of the limits of '90's technology.
If the conflict / dystopian imagery seems over stressed, consider it the combat fatigue of a 21st Century consumer.
4too
themilner said:
Just be glad 4too is relatively quiet these days. When that guy is at full speed he's more insightful than anyone I've ever met, barring a handful of academic specialists speaking on their specific topics and IHT commentators. Of course you have to dig in to get to the meat since the dude refuses to type like a normal person.
themilner said:
This?
themilner said:
I'm happier with it than if people viewed us a bunch of fawning fanboys.
Anyway, welsh covered most of it, but let me add one thing: it's not so much the labels people put on us that bug me. People will label other people all the time, it makes them feel more secure in their own little group, to point and say "those guys are insane". *shrug* If they can't get by otherwise, who am I to argue?
What bugs me are the wild inaccuracies that float around. The massive misunderstandings that don't seem to have any root reason. The fact that people won't simply recognize that we're fans just like any other fans, certainly no more intense than Star Wars or Transformers fans, but that we're stuck more in a point where it feels like media and industry have turned against us. If one wanted to be unfriendly, they'd say they "left us behind", but that's not really accurate either, because the frustrating thing is that we do not so much represent an antiquated viewpoint, we represented a different one.
Yet people try their hardest to try and represent us as antiquated. To state we have problems with real-time combat because we're nostalgic about turn-based combat. To push the viewpoint on us that we'd like Fallout 3 to be a 2D copy of Fallout 2. This last one in particular is annoying, and probably why people here went in swinging for that statement of yours.
A copy of Fallout 2? After 10 years? Fuck off. We have modders who are working on that and that's exactly what we like it to be: a modding project. But a professionally produced game that 10 years after date doesn't utilize the leaps forwards that gaming technology has made in graphics and interface adaptability? That doesn't try to push Fallout further along the path of smarter AI, better combat, better quest design and more expansive choice and consequences?
I'd be pretty damned insulted if someone were to make said copy now and try to sell it to us at full price. It's friggin' 10 years later, I expect the franchise to evolve.
That's what Van Buren was. Evolving. Bethesda's Fallout 3 certainly isn't, and I think we've recognized that since the start, and that basic disagreement between NMA and Bethesda really can not be bridged. They believe the value of franchises is only in setting, and gameplay wise everything should be changed every time (this is what they say, it's not really true, the TES series certainly haven't evolved that much). We believe core gameplay elements are as vital to sequels as setting elements, otherwise it's just a spin-off.
That's a fundamental disagreement. Can't be helped, there's no real middle way either. Bethesda never cared about Fallout 3's pen and paper roots, and is turning it into their brand of immersive RPGs instead.
If you'll remember, Brother None & I interviewed Pete Hines (a lil' short but still).themilner said:
We weren't 'intense'. Maybe a little sharp question-wise and such, but not intense. Both BN & I were completely calm at the time.
But what's bad about being called intense? We've been called a lot worse (as mentioned above).
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I don't think he meant it as a bad thing... At least I don't take "intense" as bad thing... I'm pretty intense myself, in some things more than in others but still, I think being intense is a bad thing...SuAside said:But what's bad about being called intense? We've been called a lot worse (as mentioned above).
But maybe I understood the question in a completely wrong way... bah, imma play so deus ex (god i hate that combat).
winterraptor
First time out of the vault
Snackpack said:
I believe I saw that movie...
Snackpack said:
So theres no official 'Association of Rabid Fallout Fan Undesireables' (ARFFU) boycott? A dog must've ate a proposal somewhere down the line.
Anyway, to put it succinctly, if you're buying the game, you're proving Bethesda right in ignoring your opinion. Why should they give a shit if they can sell it even to the 'haters'? Basically you're a screeching baby bird hopping up and down waiting for momma Bethesda to feed you its regurgitated sloppy mess. A fallout fix satiated for a moment but the next day, like lowered expectations staring you in the face from the haze of the night before, altogether regrettable and unsatisfying.
winterraptor said:
That, or a lot of us think a boycott, especially an official one, is a stupid idea.
Because it is.
winterraptor said:
They don't care about our purchasing power at all, either in what we can add or what we can detract in personal purchases.
As far as they care about us (and I can't really tell how far that is), they have reason to dislike us for our weavy tendrils extending into the gaming media and our constant roll of bad word of mouth.
What is our effect on Fallout 3's marketing so far? The fact that almost nowhere ('cept on console sites, for some reason), Fallout 3 is discussed without a few people voicing doubts or - alternatively - everyone talking/obsessing about us, the "haters". In other words, Fallout 3 can't be discussed without discussing the fact that it has heavy detractors - not even in most previews and interviews.
We're impossible to ignore. If we have any strength (Frith knows if we does), it's in that, not in our wallets.
welsh
Junkmaster
But bad word of mouth also has an economic effect. Bad word of mouth could translate into fewer sales. So there is an economic issue at stake.
So I, for one, am not against boycott. From what I have so far seen, I probably won' t be buying the game.
And to be honest, I think Bethesda could make a good first person post-apocalyptic game. But that's just not a Fallout game.
Does that matter? Yes. To me its a question about quality and art. Bethesda is making a make-over and making artistic compromises that Fallout fans don't really want. Then, by packaging it as Fallout 3, they are essentially saying, "this is the new face of Fallout." In the process, however, they've moved away from Fallout's artistic roots.
To me, this is almost abusive. A product has a brand name - a business value- based on how well it does with consumers. Now Bethesda is putting out a Fallout game that doesn't incorporate the basic elements of Fallout?
I don't mind them coming out with a FPS game, even one with Fallout elements. But call it Fallout First Person, or Fallout Oblivion, or Fallout- Washington Wasteland, or something. At least be honest that its not like Fallout 1 or 2.
Enough with the lies.
So I, for one, am not against boycott. From what I have so far seen, I probably won' t be buying the game.
And to be honest, I think Bethesda could make a good first person post-apocalyptic game. But that's just not a Fallout game.
Does that matter? Yes. To me its a question about quality and art. Bethesda is making a make-over and making artistic compromises that Fallout fans don't really want. Then, by packaging it as Fallout 3, they are essentially saying, "this is the new face of Fallout." In the process, however, they've moved away from Fallout's artistic roots.
To me, this is almost abusive. A product has a brand name - a business value- based on how well it does with consumers. Now Bethesda is putting out a Fallout game that doesn't incorporate the basic elements of Fallout?
I don't mind them coming out with a FPS game, even one with Fallout elements. But call it Fallout First Person, or Fallout Oblivion, or Fallout- Washington Wasteland, or something. At least be honest that its not like Fallout 1 or 2.
Enough with the lies.
State Of A Nation, One Point At A Time
State Of A Nation, One Point At A Time
welsh:
This is a scenario where politics is local.
Local nephew and his pals are grinding through WOW. Relax by thrashing out Guitar Hero.
Using PC's with older P4 motherboards, XP sp2, but recent 256 mg video, using bargain and hand me down tech.
Not a stereotyped pop culture of unlimited funding and endless hours of play. Time @ WOW shoe horned into schedule.
Yet so far in, selling characters. Challenge is to pump up the less nerf-ed, group support classes.
See PS2's, Xbox'es, sitting idle. For lite-gaming. Guitar Hero. See serious play on old PC's with broad band links. Money allocated for WOW and cable subscriptions.
DOW? Not interested in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th expansions. (Well ... me too.)
Bioshock? Waited for the real reviews from their peers, and can list all the flaws. No avalanche of sales. Not even interested in as gift.
Where WOW is number 1, Oblivion a footnote in recent history.
At this level, it's the friends network, the local word of mouth affecting limited sales.
Where WOW is number 1, how can buzz agents and brand ambassadors ...
change the direction these consumers are already going to go?
Yes, they know of FO, and hear the drum beat for many titles, including Beth-Soft's FO3.
Budgeting money AND TIME, they can wait for the peer reviews, the 10 or 20 dollar off loss leaders, the gift, the bargain bin.
I don't see the potential at this point of sale for impulse buying, unless it's WOW, or Guitar Hero.
{Stunned that B-Soft hasn't yet intimated, sweet whispered, a lurking mini-game, a Guitar Hero clone.
B-soft no longer cutting edge Nex Gen? B-soft sliding into conservative market-eering decline?}
The hard reality of limited time and money, the power of teen age peer pressure, may be primary forces in this local domain.
Game time busy with WOW, Guitar Hero, oh ... and real-life(tm), what other marketing hype can penetrate this local sub culture?
4too
State Of A Nation, One Point At A Time
welsh:
This is a scenario where politics is local.
Local nephew and his pals are grinding through WOW. Relax by thrashing out Guitar Hero.
Using PC's with older P4 motherboards, XP sp2, but recent 256 mg video, using bargain and hand me down tech.
Not a stereotyped pop culture of unlimited funding and endless hours of play. Time @ WOW shoe horned into schedule.
Yet so far in, selling characters. Challenge is to pump up the less nerf-ed, group support classes.
See PS2's, Xbox'es, sitting idle. For lite-gaming. Guitar Hero. See serious play on old PC's with broad band links. Money allocated for WOW and cable subscriptions.
DOW? Not interested in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th expansions. (Well ... me too.)
Bioshock? Waited for the real reviews from their peers, and can list all the flaws. No avalanche of sales. Not even interested in as gift.
Where WOW is number 1, Oblivion a footnote in recent history.
At this level, it's the friends network, the local word of mouth affecting limited sales.
Where WOW is number 1, how can buzz agents and brand ambassadors ...
change the direction these consumers are already going to go?
Yes, they know of FO, and hear the drum beat for many titles, including Beth-Soft's FO3.
Budgeting money AND TIME, they can wait for the peer reviews, the 10 or 20 dollar off loss leaders, the gift, the bargain bin.
I don't see the potential at this point of sale for impulse buying, unless it's WOW, or Guitar Hero.
{Stunned that B-Soft hasn't yet intimated, sweet whispered, a lurking mini-game, a Guitar Hero clone.
B-soft no longer cutting edge Nex Gen? B-soft sliding into conservative market-eering decline?}
The hard reality of limited time and money, the power of teen age peer pressure, may be primary forces in this local domain.
Game time busy with WOW, Guitar Hero, oh ... and real-life(tm), what other marketing hype can penetrate this local sub culture?
4too
Brother None said:
Explain why Bethesda would be at all concerned with fallout 3 detractors being impossible to ignore if they were not worried about bad publicity affecting their bottom line. My word of mouth alone will stop 5 units of Fallout 3 being sold among my friends and I, costing beth roughly 300 usd in sales. While I say "boycott" with a degree of levity, a grin on my face, and my middle finger in the air (none of which comes through in text) I mean it all the same. Whether personal or collective (the term can be used in the singular) what is the problem with refusing to buy a product on principle alone, and convincing others to do the same?
Brother None said:
I agree that some kind of "official" boycott would be as immature as calling your peers "slavering retards", or crying, "mommy, bethesda stole my fallout 3!". However, on a personal level what else can one do but refuse to spend money on something they have a fundamental disagreement with in an attempt to make their opinion felt? If you think attempting to affect change in a free market by abstaining from purchasing something is "stupid", you're wrong.
*inserts a double-space to make room for unbridled college-kid-esque smugness*
Because it isn't.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
well, i CAN say that the creation of a petition of signatures from fans NOT willing to buy fo3...displayed publicly (with enough signatures) might at the very least create an article or two and just a little bit of negative publicity. or hell, it'd just be interesting to see what kind of numbers we pull.
unfortunately in the world of media, the phrase goes "no such thing as bad press."
so there you have it.
unfortunately in the world of media, the phrase goes "no such thing as bad press."
so there you have it.
Snackpack said:
Congratulations on not having friends that think for themselves, then.
nice, ron l. snackpack. *user was panned for this boast*
on 4too: i am in awe of myself that i got your point in the first reading. right now, i am confused WHO b-soft (i love that reminescence b-... b-movies etc) wants to sell to. looks like some midfield sales to people who buy-play-forget. maybe just ... buy.
that led me to ask myself why I buy games. i do not think that i am soooo special when it comes to microeconomic behaviour. i always have enough cash available to buy some games when i go shopping, like most people of my age. but i do only buy games from which i know they are good. since there are only 2 people i know that play games like me (games i like and amount of time spent playing), i have only 2 reliable sources in that regard- my opinion is heavily influenced by online fora i visit. so i buy, what <strike>jebus</strike> <strike>luke</strike> <strike>bullock</strike> <strike>diamondgypsy</strike> people on the internets recommend. sales target |= me.
and, if b-soft is targetting younger clientele, which might be preoccupied with pokeman, old pcs, guitar hero etc... they might end up with selling a lot less, regardless of hype (awexome brutality ololo) AND background story (we have made a game for all youse from arroyo).
on 4too: i am in awe of myself that i got your point in the first reading. right now, i am confused WHO b-soft (i love that reminescence b-... b-movies etc) wants to sell to. looks like some midfield sales to people who buy-play-forget. maybe just ... buy.
that led me to ask myself why I buy games. i do not think that i am soooo special when it comes to microeconomic behaviour. i always have enough cash available to buy some games when i go shopping, like most people of my age. but i do only buy games from which i know they are good. since there are only 2 people i know that play games like me (games i like and amount of time spent playing), i have only 2 reliable sources in that regard- my opinion is heavily influenced by online fora i visit. so i buy, what <strike>jebus</strike> <strike>luke</strike> <strike>bullock</strike> <strike>diamondgypsy</strike> people on the internets recommend. sales target |= me.
and, if b-soft is targetting younger clientele, which might be preoccupied with pokeman, old pcs, guitar hero etc... they might end up with selling a lot less, regardless of hype (awexome brutality ololo) AND background story (we have made a game for all youse from arroyo).