Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
Mr. Teatime said:
Now you know why Bethesda doesn't make multiplayer games. They can't even keep a web forum up.
Rosh talks about Bethesda
- Thread starter Odin
- Start date
Vault Senior Citizen
Now you know why Bethesda doesn't make multiplayer games. They can't even keep a web forum up.
Saint_Proverbius said:
UBB, as well. Seriously. Holy shit. Unbelievable. Seriously. What the fuck? Their admins must be masochists. UBB was antiquidated to better forms of DCForum ages ago, and despite all of that, there's a reason why most tend to use vBulletin or phpBB.
).Roshambo said:
in that case, another kudos to interplay.
if they could use thier brain, which is probably hard lately, they could've given the license to someone who actually cares about the fallout universe, or even developed it, and get precentage from the sales.
instead they made a quick buck, and found just another team who likes to exploit title names...thanx again for rising from your grave to make to final attack.
rikus said:
The real shocker is not Interplay. Interplay had no real choice, they had to go for the highest bidder. It's not like they have money to spare.
The shockers is that "real fans of the series" would rather outbid a company that has two core Fallout people and get the license themselves, without knowing what to do with it.
I don't see how they can even pretend to be fans and buy the license when they have already stated big parts of Fallout are "not what they do best". If you they love the game so much, how about letting it go to someone who can do something with it?
Again, it's important to consider which group of fans are being alienated.
Consider that the number of people who were unhappy with the direction Van Buren was taking and who felt that Fallout 2 was "not a proper Fallout game" are a vanishingly small section of the fanbase. That particular stance is not, I would contend, one held by the vast, overwhelming majority of people who bought the first two games. And if BIS couldn't get it right twice in a row for that particular group of people, Bethesda would not be unreasonable to decide that they had no chance in hell and that it wasn't worth trying.
Consider that the first two Fallout games, while critically acclaimed, were not to the best of my knowledge runaway sellers, particularly in the first few quarters. Indeed, I don't have the numbers but it wouldn't surprise me if Morrowind's sales in its first six months were noticably higher than those of either Fallout game. On this logic, merely reproducing one of the earlier games without making significant changes (apart from fixing problems) is not a recipe for success; rather, trying to fuse the Fallout tradition with some Morrowind-esque (-esque) mass-market appeal is more likely to win sales. They will no doubt alienate a portion of the Fallout fans, but if it means winning a far larger chunk of less "hardcore" gamers, then it's a good business decision.
Consider that going out of your way to accomodate a small group of people who are never going to agree with your interpretation of the license (and of whom many have already declared they won't buy the finished product), and who think that merely telling you that you've got your head up your ass without resorting to further profanities is a display of politeness may not be worth even trivial effort. The handful (I don't have exact figures but I'm guessing under 100) of sales that this will lose you is worth it if it means you're not getting harrassed and sworn at every day.
On a purely selfish level, consider that by displaying this attitude you're associating the desire to see a faithful interpretation of the original two titles and the spirit of Van Buren with a handful of, to the developers, small-minded petty thugs with an over-inflated view of their own self-importance and a near-total lack of grasp of the bigger picture. Consider that I really, really want Bethesda to do a good job of the game, I want turn-based combat, I want the SPECIAL system, I want the proper "feel" to the game, and I'm worried that it's not going to happen because of the impression that Bethesda is being given of the fans of the series. I realise you feel you've been "driven" to this attitude, that it's the only way you're going to be heard, that developers just don't understand etc etc, but step back and ask yourself if attacking the developers like this before they've even begun is really going to help your cause. At all.
Consider that you are not entitled to anything, and that Bethesda is under no obligation to do anything at all at this stage. No, really. Regardless of what you think they ought to do to satisfy your own sense of curiosity/indignancy/whatever, they have a moral responsibility to do exactly squat.
Finally, as to the "evasive" developer comments so far, and the whole "they don't even know what they're doing with it, why did they buy it, this sucks, they suck, etc" attitude:
My grasp of this particular aspect of the industry is not complete; my work to date (heh) has mostly dealt with testing, customer service, community management and the like. However, my understanding is that there are several steps to be taken before a game's features are agreed on and it can go into development proper. First a design document has to be drawn up. This takes a long time, because it has to detail everything about the entire game. When you throw in the fact that the license is a very well-known and well-loved one, you'd assume that they'll spend extra time on this to make sure they get as much right first time round as possible. Then there's prototyping, where the all the basic gameplay components are coded into a mock-up program to test that they all make sense are are workable. This, again, will take a fair amount of time. I'd guess that anything less than a couple of weeks for these two stages would be ludicrous.
Now consider that most developers, especially those that are their own publishers and therefore cannot afford to just fritter away cash, will not be able to justify blowing two weeks' or a month's development time for several people who, as potential lead designers, are going to be in fairly high demand internally, to do a design doc and prototyping for a game which requires a license which you don't own, which you've failed to acquire once already and which the owner has recently stated a desire to do further work with. That would just be stupid. Therefore, the chances are that they don't have a firm, concrete idea of what they're doing yet for perfectly legitimate reasons. And when you are at that stage, when you have a whole bunch of stuff that you want to do but which you're not even sure is technically feasible yet, it's incredibly stupid to start talking about what you "want" to do, because you know that, especially with the Fallout fanbase, anything that you even mention in passing which does not make it into the final game is going to get you castigated. If they have any sense at all they will have a blanket policy which says "no-one gives any details to anyone yet". It's early days, and the unlikeliest of problems can crop up - see the Rope Arrow in Thief 3 which, despite dozens of hours of developer work, was not physically possible within the confines of the Havok physics engine that they'd licensed. These things happen.
Consider that the number of people who were unhappy with the direction Van Buren was taking and who felt that Fallout 2 was "not a proper Fallout game" are a vanishingly small section of the fanbase. That particular stance is not, I would contend, one held by the vast, overwhelming majority of people who bought the first two games. And if BIS couldn't get it right twice in a row for that particular group of people, Bethesda would not be unreasonable to decide that they had no chance in hell and that it wasn't worth trying.
Consider that the first two Fallout games, while critically acclaimed, were not to the best of my knowledge runaway sellers, particularly in the first few quarters. Indeed, I don't have the numbers but it wouldn't surprise me if Morrowind's sales in its first six months were noticably higher than those of either Fallout game. On this logic, merely reproducing one of the earlier games without making significant changes (apart from fixing problems) is not a recipe for success; rather, trying to fuse the Fallout tradition with some Morrowind-esque (-esque) mass-market appeal is more likely to win sales. They will no doubt alienate a portion of the Fallout fans, but if it means winning a far larger chunk of less "hardcore" gamers, then it's a good business decision.
Consider that going out of your way to accomodate a small group of people who are never going to agree with your interpretation of the license (and of whom many have already declared they won't buy the finished product), and who think that merely telling you that you've got your head up your ass without resorting to further profanities is a display of politeness may not be worth even trivial effort. The handful (I don't have exact figures but I'm guessing under 100) of sales that this will lose you is worth it if it means you're not getting harrassed and sworn at every day.
On a purely selfish level, consider that by displaying this attitude you're associating the desire to see a faithful interpretation of the original two titles and the spirit of Van Buren with a handful of, to the developers, small-minded petty thugs with an over-inflated view of their own self-importance and a near-total lack of grasp of the bigger picture. Consider that I really, really want Bethesda to do a good job of the game, I want turn-based combat, I want the SPECIAL system, I want the proper "feel" to the game, and I'm worried that it's not going to happen because of the impression that Bethesda is being given of the fans of the series. I realise you feel you've been "driven" to this attitude, that it's the only way you're going to be heard, that developers just don't understand etc etc, but step back and ask yourself if attacking the developers like this before they've even begun is really going to help your cause. At all.
Consider that you are not entitled to anything, and that Bethesda is under no obligation to do anything at all at this stage. No, really. Regardless of what you think they ought to do to satisfy your own sense of curiosity/indignancy/whatever, they have a moral responsibility to do exactly squat.
Finally, as to the "evasive" developer comments so far, and the whole "they don't even know what they're doing with it, why did they buy it, this sucks, they suck, etc" attitude:
My grasp of this particular aspect of the industry is not complete; my work to date (heh) has mostly dealt with testing, customer service, community management and the like. However, my understanding is that there are several steps to be taken before a game's features are agreed on and it can go into development proper. First a design document has to be drawn up. This takes a long time, because it has to detail everything about the entire game. When you throw in the fact that the license is a very well-known and well-loved one, you'd assume that they'll spend extra time on this to make sure they get as much right first time round as possible. Then there's prototyping, where the all the basic gameplay components are coded into a mock-up program to test that they all make sense are are workable. This, again, will take a fair amount of time. I'd guess that anything less than a couple of weeks for these two stages would be ludicrous.
Now consider that most developers, especially those that are their own publishers and therefore cannot afford to just fritter away cash, will not be able to justify blowing two weeks' or a month's development time for several people who, as potential lead designers, are going to be in fairly high demand internally, to do a design doc and prototyping for a game which requires a license which you don't own, which you've failed to acquire once already and which the owner has recently stated a desire to do further work with. That would just be stupid. Therefore, the chances are that they don't have a firm, concrete idea of what they're doing yet for perfectly legitimate reasons. And when you are at that stage, when you have a whole bunch of stuff that you want to do but which you're not even sure is technically feasible yet, it's incredibly stupid to start talking about what you "want" to do, because you know that, especially with the Fallout fanbase, anything that you even mention in passing which does not make it into the final game is going to get you castigated. If they have any sense at all they will have a blanket policy which says "no-one gives any details to anyone yet". It's early days, and the unlikeliest of problems can crop up - see the Rope Arrow in Thief 3 which, despite dozens of hours of developer work, was not physically possible within the confines of the Havok physics engine that they'd licensed. These things happen.
It's amusing that you try to use the "mainstream" line, when that has been tried before. It was called Lionheart. It didn't work either. The sales validation was just as pointless. You see, it's hard to NOT find a thread about Fallout 3 now at most gaming sites. That means that in direct inverse to your head, that the franchise and audience expanded since Fallout was released.
A lot of the people you talk about are also largely ignorant and wouldn't be able to tell the design flaws on paper. A lot of people can't. A lot of people are uneducated kids with no sense of game design or series development, as you can undoubtedly see from how I've had to educate more than a few as to why Fallout has an isometric viewpoint. Many of them aren't old enough to remember where these same things have resulted in the demise of other, more popular series. Why am I'm supposed to give a shit about them?
Toast, you also have to understand that the items of note are basic elements. Fundamentals, to further hope to give some grasp of the concept. Not whether some city has a working well or not. They have already been looking at this for a time at length, and either they plan to adhere to the Fallout CRPG design or not. It's simple as that.
A lot of the people you talk about are also largely ignorant and wouldn't be able to tell the design flaws on paper. A lot of people can't. A lot of people are uneducated kids with no sense of game design or series development, as you can undoubtedly see from how I've had to educate more than a few as to why Fallout has an isometric viewpoint. Many of them aren't old enough to remember where these same things have resulted in the demise of other, more popular series. Why am I'm supposed to give a shit about them?
Toast, you also have to understand that the items of note are basic elements. Fundamentals, to further hope to give some grasp of the concept. Not whether some city has a working well or not. They have already been looking at this for a time at length, and either they plan to adhere to the Fallout CRPG design or not. It's simple as that.
Bullshit. That's giving up before even doing anything. If anything, they'll at least show their plans to the Fallout community before giving up on us.Toast said:
Doubtful. Consider that Fallout: Tactics was the most pre-ordered game in Interplay history, and that was due PURELY to the fact that it had the Fallout name in it. Fallout: BOS failed to do this because of negative press coverage, but if Bethesda manages to win the Fallout fans for them they'll have a large and loyal following, and, something which is very important, all the editorials and webcomics out there won't slaughter them. If they, on the other hand, mess with Fallout 3, they will be slaughtered by the internet community. A LOT of people out there are Fallout fans, and they are very local. Word of mouth goes a very very long way, and could ruin Bethesda.
One thing that differentiates it from Interplay's FOBOS is that this is an actual sequel, not a spin-off.
Not true. There are a bunch of morons who can only swear at Bethesda, but if you look closely here, you see mainly constructive criticism. You see advice of why something should be done, and you see solid argumentation as well.
You're again, wrong. This isn't attacking, it's fear, at most. But mostly, it's constructive criticism. The initial reaction of most, here, was "Oh, god, Morrowind." But we're now three days further and what you mainly see now is constructive argumented criticism. If the devs can take their time to listen to this, something good can happen.
Look at JE Sawyer, the man was very heavily criticised in the initial stages of Van Buren, but the further he came, the more he got accepted, and mainly because he tended to at least listen.
Everyone knows this, and this is why everyone's afraid.
Although I disagree with the moral thing: they have an obligation to remain faithful to the series, because they are, as it were, handling someone else's brainchild.
Agreed. This can take a lot of time, and while I do think they have ideas, I think they're currently at a stage where they're evaluating and discussing the reasons and benefits behind the main points.
This, however, does not mean that we can't be annoyed by that.
Lionheart was "mainstream"? I thought it was a poor attempt to generate some revenue by kludging together some previous development work with cranky graphics using a poorly thought-out implementation of a turn-based combat engine an a distinct lack of polish. I could be missing the point as either I don't entirely understand the argument you're making, or I understand what you're saying but entirely fail to grasp how it applies to the situation, but Lionheart was the exact opposite of what I suspect Bethesda will try, ie a more mainstream world tacked onto a variation of the Fallout engine rather than the Fallout world tacked onto a more mainstream engine. Lionheart took what is now the worst of both worlds, and screwed it up anyway; of course it was going to fail.
Yes, I'm aware that everyone's talking about Fallout 3. However, a lot of them are excited about the idea of a big-name developer making a new CRPG in the Fallout universe, some of them are slightly concerned that Bethesda will not do the license full justice, and a tiny minority are taking your stance that it will unconditionally suck. There are a lot of Fallout fans out there, but most do not have requirements anything like as stringent as those you seem to be espousing.
Yes, a lot of people don't have anything approaching an instinctive understanding of game design and what will and won't work. I've come across plenty of suggestions in my particular field (had one today actually) where the first thing that I thought of when reading it is "you can't seriously think that that's a good idea". Frankly this is largely irrelevant at the moment because we have no solid information to go on, but the reason you should give a shit is that there are many more of them than there are of you, and making a game that satisfies them is easier than making a game that satisfies you. It's easier and more cost-effective to please the masses than the "experts", self-appointed or otherwise, and it'll be an interesting test of Bethesda's devotion to the franchise as to how far they'll go to please the smaller and smaller subdivisions of fans.
Roshambo, you have to understand that what they plan to do and what is technically feasible to do are not the same thing. The rope arrow was one of the coolest things from the first two Thief games and I have no doubt that ISA had every intention to include it, but it turned out to be physically impossible. I realise that some of the stuff at stake, such as the SPECIAL system, are even more fundamental than that, but it is still early days. We don't know if they've even got rights to the SPECIAL system yet. They undoubtedly don't know everything, and we know even less. I have no doubt that, as even comparatively casual fans of the series, they plan to make the game as faithful as is technically and economically possible, but that does not automatically equate to a finished product which closely resembles either the original two games or what they plan to do. Game design is not an exact science, and because of this, regardless of what they plan to do or what they're setting out to achieve, it would be downright stupid to tell people what their plans are at this stage. If you don't understand that then you're displaying a far weaker grasp of game development than you lay claim to.
In closing, and to illustrate one final point about what people on other sites are saying, and typifying a fairly common viewpoint among people I've talked to, take this quote. This is fairly representitive of a fair number of Fallout fans.
Yes, I'm aware that everyone's talking about Fallout 3. However, a lot of them are excited about the idea of a big-name developer making a new CRPG in the Fallout universe, some of them are slightly concerned that Bethesda will not do the license full justice, and a tiny minority are taking your stance that it will unconditionally suck. There are a lot of Fallout fans out there, but most do not have requirements anything like as stringent as those you seem to be espousing.
Yes, a lot of people don't have anything approaching an instinctive understanding of game design and what will and won't work. I've come across plenty of suggestions in my particular field (had one today actually) where the first thing that I thought of when reading it is "you can't seriously think that that's a good idea". Frankly this is largely irrelevant at the moment because we have no solid information to go on, but the reason you should give a shit is that there are many more of them than there are of you, and making a game that satisfies them is easier than making a game that satisfies you. It's easier and more cost-effective to please the masses than the "experts", self-appointed or otherwise, and it'll be an interesting test of Bethesda's devotion to the franchise as to how far they'll go to please the smaller and smaller subdivisions of fans.
Roshambo, you have to understand that what they plan to do and what is technically feasible to do are not the same thing. The rope arrow was one of the coolest things from the first two Thief games and I have no doubt that ISA had every intention to include it, but it turned out to be physically impossible. I realise that some of the stuff at stake, such as the SPECIAL system, are even more fundamental than that, but it is still early days. We don't know if they've even got rights to the SPECIAL system yet. They undoubtedly don't know everything, and we know even less. I have no doubt that, as even comparatively casual fans of the series, they plan to make the game as faithful as is technically and economically possible, but that does not automatically equate to a finished product which closely resembles either the original two games or what they plan to do. Game design is not an exact science, and because of this, regardless of what they plan to do or what they're setting out to achieve, it would be downright stupid to tell people what their plans are at this stage. If you don't understand that then you're displaying a far weaker grasp of game development than you lay claim to.
In closing, and to illustrate one final point about what people on other sites are saying, and typifying a fairly common viewpoint among people I've talked to, take this quote. This is fairly representitive of a fair number of Fallout fans.
Why? Given the attitude that's been displayed so far, why would they want to? You're only representative of about 100 potential sales. Many people here have already dismissed any possibility of the game being "worthy". Damnit, you're not giving them any reason to try.Sander said:
People ordered tactics because it was set in the Fallout universe and promised Fallout-like gameplay or aspects thereof. If people will buy that, then people will probably buy a Bethesda spin on Fallout 3. That's my point. There are a lot of people out there who love Fallout but are willing to buy games which are not merely extensions of the first two games. FOBOS was a POS, everyone acknowledges that. However, if FO3 turns out to be a good game set in the Fallout universe then most fans will buy it. There are a lot of Fallout fans out there, but you have to realise that they aren't as stringent as you are, and you do not speak for their viewpoint. I'm sorry, but the kind of attitude on display at nma is not representitive of the Fallout fanbase as a whole. Harsh but true.
Dude, if you think the quote in the first post in this thread is just constructive criticism and is likely to go down with a developer, you're screwed. I see criticism. Some of it is constructive. A lot of that is pie-in-the-sky stuff. I also see antagonism, virulence, fundamentalism, and a whole bunch of other undesirable elements.
That's an obligation to the guys that created the series, and it may take a different form to what you suppose. For example, it could be an obligation to make a best-selling game which brings the magic of the Fallout universe to as many people as possible.
Toast said:
100 potential sales?
*checks memberlist on NMA alone*
I think it's much more than a 100. Also, fansites promote the game, and their opinion is very important for the game to succeed. Look at, say, FOPOS.
I don't give a swimming fuck about good business decisions. It should all be about making fans happy, not making $$$$. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.
who the running fuck cares if it's a best-selling game? I'd rather they make one successful Fallout and go bankrupt than make a dozen crappy Fallouts and get richer than EA. I don't want them to bring it to as many people as possible, you tard, and nobody else here wants to. Because "as many people as possible" always means 12-year old munchkins who don't give a shit about Fallout or what it stands for.
Memberlist is irrelevant. What counts is how many people share the attitude displayed in the first post of this thread. That number is, I would contend, pretty small.
FOBOS was a bad game. It wasn't destroyed by NMA, it was destroyed by terrible reviews and word-of-mouth among more moderate sites. Don't delude yourself into thinking that NMA can somehow make or break this game. To be perfectly honest, most people who know the site know that NMA will hate whatever Bethesda does anyway, so they'll probably discount any opinions voiced here before they even start.
FOBOS was a bad game. It wasn't destroyed by NMA, it was destroyed by terrible reviews and word-of-mouth among more moderate sites. Don't delude yourself into thinking that NMA can somehow make or break this game. To be perfectly honest, most people who know the site know that NMA will hate whatever Bethesda does anyway, so they'll probably discount any opinions voiced here before they even start.
Toast said:
Actually, I think it used a real time combat engine. Which was supposed to make it more "mainstream" like a BioWare title and appeal to the lowest common denominator.
It's wholly ironic that you post that, when my .sig is readily available. Tell me, have you read it yet? Then you might have some idea as to which outcome it would tend to be and it's not what you previously thought.
That's mouth-stuffing, shithead. Try reading next time. In fact, I'd have to say that you're trolling with that bullshit, as I've made a post or fifteen that have made my speculations known given the known information. I'm saying that if Bethesda deviates from the formula, as they have already said they will by stating what I have in my .sig, then the reception of the title will quickly turn towards a feeling of deja vu of FOT and F
OS, even among the other news sites.Does that inconvenience your villianizing of me, or do you still want to continue that?
Maybe because I'm a bit knowledgeable about CRPG design, the Fallout franchise, and know what I'm talking about. I've been at this site for quite some time and involved with I don't think I need to point out the damn obvious that the regulars here would also be the ones who have spoken with and regularly speak to the original Fallout devs, often on a regular basis. Maybe it's because we also have a grasp of the setting versus than some chump who posts on a message board.
So why should Fallout 3 be different from the originals in terms of basic design elements?
That still implies ignorance as to what makes or breaks a series, and you're still going on in hopeless ignorance. The masses of people who would like Fallout in FPS or whatever, I still don't care about and pretty much never will. If the developers decide to abandon what made the game good and what made the fans come to the series in the first place, then that's their fault, not mine. They can be known for fucking up the setting or feel of the game if they wish.
You're still not understanding that the core design is what brought most of the fans to the game, and maybe a few friends who came along on a recommendation, otherwise they wouldn't be following the damn game as closely as they have.
THINK, McFly, THINK.
You need to understand that they are bloody fucking retards if they expect the fans to accept that Nevermind your own skewed perception about reality, not too many liked changes to the Fallout franchise, which was proven by FOT and F
OS. Removing what makes the CRPG a CRPG is pretty much removing the purpose of the game, and would only serve yet again as something to piss them off.Take your empty defense somewhere else, kid. I'm not impressed.
That sounds like piss-poor planning to me.
Now it's obvious you're just cluelessly trolling. Goodbye. Come back when you have a brain. SPECIAL is intrinsic to Fallout, which is the entire point of emphasis upon it.
Keeping SPECIAL is a no-brainer.
Correction, YOU know less.
Aww, this is amusing. Your fucktard little buddy didn't even bother to read the post thoroughly, else they wouldn't have made such an idiotic statement like that. It's clear they have already made up their mind about the site, and didn't bother to read, maybe skim over it. However, judging from the lack of coherent thought, I must wonder how the hell YOU thought you could pass that bit of ignorance off as something relevant to the discussion.
Oh, damn, I forgot. You're banned already.
Wait, I'm not? Since when have I dismissed this? You're talking out of your ass, there are very few people who don't want to buy the game per se, and frankly, they're idiots.
However, there are many many people out there who want Fallout much the way it was. Almost every single forum out there probably has a topic about Fallout 3, and you always hear that they want another one like Fallout 1 & 2. We represent a whole lot more than just a hundred sales, especially considering the fact that several webcomics express interest in Fallout 3, mainly Ctrl-Alt-Del and Penny Arcade, they're probably the two most visited web comics on the net.
Ignoring a fan community as large as Fallout's is alienating a fan base and therefore alienating a large group of potential buyers. Thinking that we're only with a hundred or so is very very stupid.
They pre-ordered it because of that.
No, becaause since then we've wisened up. Because if this were still true for today's community, FOBOS would've sold a lot more copies.
And it didn't sell. Wow, I wonder why. Maybe because, shocker, it alienated the traditional fan base, and gave a new fan base no reason to like it. It was, in fact, competing with INterplay's better DA.
Bullshit. We ARE the fanbase, duh. There are a lot of people out there who liked Fallout, but they cannot be considered any form of fanbase, because they don't show themselves. You can't just assume that most people out there do not agree with NMA, when they just don't say anything.
You need to realise that we are just a small group of people out of the huge Fallout fanbase, but most Fallout fans DO feel that Fallout deserves a worthy sequel, everyone has their own ideas, but general ideas do include SPECIAl, turn based combat and a good open ended story line. Because that's what made them like Fallout in the first place.
YOu can't see the constructive criticism in that?
Look, if these developers can't look past some of the insulting remarks, and really, the first post here was not that bad, then they can't claim that they are listening to the fan base, something they are claiming to do.
Look at the main threads here, and you will see firstly wonder and fear, and then you'll see constructive criticism.
Bullshit. It holds a moral obligation to stay true to the original brainchild. If you fuck up the original brainchild but in the process make it a best-seller, that's not respecting the brainchild of the people who made the first Fallout.
Toast said:
You haven't been around here very long, have you?
You can stand on your head and be an apologists. Stick your head in the sand and pretend we're not representative of the sales. Pretend that only the people that actually post here agree with the general stance that it "should have at least this or that"
But history has proven you wrong. Tactics had RPG elements, remember, and we gave it a chance, but it failed because the makers weren't making a Fallout. They weren't listening
Yes, it is. You're looking at different segments of the fanbase here. I've explained this before, try to pay attention
Fallout fans = people who love Fallout for what it is
CRPG fans = people who like a good CRPG, and wouldn't mind seeing Fallout in another setting
Imagine someone takes TES and throws it into a wildly different setting. The old TES fans will be outraged, but they wouldn't matter, right? They're not "representative of the TES fanbase as a whole"
Yes they are, they're representative of *the fanbase* just not of *the target audience*. These are two completely different things, please keep them seperate.
Learn to live with the fact, too, that NMA has been at the center of the Fallout fanbase for some time. Why do you think we saw another rise in activity with this announcement? Because Fallout fans come here for their Fallout news and opinions. We're the biggest fansite out there, probably the only one left of its type of only relevance, and yet you want to brush us off as "just hardcore fans"
You obviously have no experience with the Fallout fanbase. NMA has always been on the moderate side. When DaC or the 'Codex would burn into something, we'd be willing to give it at least a chance. So no, we're not representative of the *entire* fanbase, we're representative of the nice side.
And in case you still don't understand this, people who say "I'd like to see Fallout 3 by Bethesda" aren't Fallout fans by default, they're just CRPG lovers. People who says "I'd like to see Fallout 3 by Bethesda, if they do this and that, which I consider essential of Fallout" are fans, because they want to see what they loved in Fallout come back again.
Really? Rosh was being exceptionally kind. He has gotten ideas by with developers in much harsher tones and they have admitted that while they may not only like him, he knows what he's talking about
Why do you think he was in Planescape:Torment (more or less) and Fallout 2 (UV special encounter), anyway?
Then it would hardly be Fallout, now would it?
Toast said:
Hmm, no. Go to the other forums such as the archived Fallout 3 forum. You'll see that most members who have posted there (and it's a lot) want Fallout 3 the way Fallout 1/2 were. Because people don't post, doesn't mean they don't think.
NMA represents a good chunk of the fanbase, so yes I have to say any Fallout game can rise and fall with us. Also, if you get past your ignorance, you'll see that most other gaming forums and fan forums throughout "t3h net" are full of people like us, who want to preserve the legacy of the first two games. It's the fans' opinions that count when you want to sell a game, not some corporate poll or something. M'kay?
ToastTard said:
That's so amusing given that on even slow days, we generally get about 2k unique hits a day, and that's not including the forum activity, which is where most people come through now. There are many more now with this news and many are checking it. Many also don't come to this site, rather going to RPGCodex, and they have an even wider audience, and yet Fallout still is a predominant topic there. Even a BioWare fanboy has a better grasp of game design than you and can spot the problems if the formula is changed without reason.
I think you also need to work on your "numberin'" in addition to delving a clue from educating yourself about a subject before you presume to speak upon it.
Got to love a place where someone gets banned for disagreeing. God I love The internet.
But why is it a given to keep SPECIAL? Special was not only hopelessly broken, but far too easy to min/max. It wasnt remotely balanced.
"Critical hit to the eyes for 110 damage" etc etc....Every fight in FO1/2 was a walkover if you took one of the two viable builds for combat.
The ideas behind it were nice, keep the names etc, but the mechanics and implementation were terrible.
But why is it a given to keep SPECIAL? Special was not only hopelessly broken, but far too easy to min/max. It wasnt remotely balanced.
"Critical hit to the eyes for 110 damage" etc etc....Every fight in FO1/2 was a walkover if you took one of the two viable builds for combat.
The ideas behind it were nice, keep the names etc, but the mechanics and implementation were terrible.
Yeah fucking right. SPECIAL is necessary for Fallout because that's what it's built around. If you build a combat-oriented character you win fights, no shit. But there's a lot more to SPECIAL than just fights, everything you do in the Fallout games had to do with SPECIAL, from talking to walking to picking locks, SPECIAL came into it.
The mechanics and implementation, by the way, were not terrible. If I train a lot as a sniper, and I shoot someone in the head, I'd expect them to die. So that's what happened. The nice thing is that the same thing could happen to you as well. Too bad that didn't happen too often.