Tim Cain interview on Matt Chat, part 2

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time, must be the best movie ever.

The Twilight novels are some of the most popular books in recent years, that must mean they are the best books ever.

And McDonald's serves the finest cuisine in the world.

OMG! The attack of fallacies FROM OUTER SPACE! HELP!

Strange they forgot

"Eat sh!t. Billions of flies can't be wrong."

Your point that, even though it was enjoyable, it isn't good, is completely irrational. A good game is one you enjoy playing, unless you are some crazed masochist.

Uhm...what? Games can only be "good" or "bad"? You can't enjoy a game with lot of flaws? What kind of reasoning is this?

 

[Oerjeke]

No offence, but are you seriously arguing about OPINIONS? Granted, I don't like F3 either, but everyone has the right for an opinion. Even though it would be nice if people backed up their arguements with legitimate stuff instead of the usual "2 million people can't all be wrong!" -line.

 

[AskWazzup]

Fallout 3 is enjoyed by many people firstly because of the exposure it was given in the mass media, that was also supplemented and enhanced by the clever marketing of zenimax. The fact that it might have been enjoyed by many people doesn't necessarily make it good, it only serves as proof that the marketing departament (as it was heavily involved with the creation of F3) came up with a product that hit the right spots in their target consumer's minds (my guess - unrestricted exploration of a big sandbox map, plethora of "things" to do, easy accessibility). The fundamental aspects to attract attention from the players, F3 did good, but as a full fleshed out, coherent game, it falls short. As an rpg it lacks a good story and writing, as a fps it lacks good animations, balistics etc. etc.

Now that you have a product, you throw couple (of tens?) of million dollars for promotion, maybe press a few gaming journalists into giving you a bit better reviews, tell a few lies in the interviews (or rather things that the people want to hear...) and you create an image of your product in your consumers mind which may not reflect the reality, but since it has those things that hit the hot spots, it still keeps the players hooked once they buy it. At least this is how i percieve it

While playing F3 my cognitive thinking was not understanding how other players liked that boring (to tears) game, but the exploration part of the game was sufficient enough to hold my attention for 6 hours before i dropped it. It is not a good game, not a bad one either. If F3 had the many aspects that it lacks done right, what would that make it in the eyes of the players, when they are already calling it great, fantastic? Aren't the majority of the players a bit exaggerating with the rave reviews, when the game clearly, still has many aspects that could be improved greatly? (as opposed to the classics of the genre). Many people would probably argue to what extent something is good, but for me F3 does not represent that term.

 

[choconutjoe]

Fallout 3 is enjoyed by many people firstly because of the exposure it was given in the mass media, that was also supplemented and enhanced by the clever marketing of zenimax. The fact that it might have been enjoyed by many people doesn't necessarily make it good, it only serves as proof that the marketing departament (as it was heavily involved with the creation of F3) came up with a product that hit the right spots in their target consumer's minds (my guess - unrestricted exploration of a big sandbox map, plethora of "things" to do, easy accessibility). The fundamental aspects to attract attention from the players, F3 did good, but as a full fleshed out, coherent game, it falls short. As an rpg it lacks a good story and writing, as a fps it lacks good animations, balistics etc. etc.

Now that you have a product, you throw couple (of tens?) of million dollars for promotion, maybe press a few gaming journalists into giving you a bit better reviews, tell a few lies in the interviews (or rather things that the people want to hear...) and you create an image of your product in your consumers mind which may not reflect the reality, but since it has those things that hit the hot spots, it still keeps the players hooked once they buy it. At least this is how i percieve it

Or alternatively: Not everyone judged the game by the same criteria... so different people formed different opinions. You may not like the game, that's cool, but there's no need to assume that all the people who did like it only did so because they were duped by marketing. It could just be that they approached the game with different expectations, or that they just like different things to you.

Aren't the majority of the players a bit exaggerating with the rave reviews, when the game clearly, still has many aspects that could be improved greatly?

That's true of everything, not least the original Fallouts. Those games have so many flaws and holes in them you could waste a lifetime trying to categorize and quantify them. That fact is, they rock despite those things. I don't think FO3 is any different in that respect.

 

[Crni Vuk]

as is clearly evidenced by the thousands more people who enjoyed the game.

Yeah, MW2 is the bestest game ever becus of the loads of pplz that enjoyed it.

Or Britney Spears the bestest singer in recorded music history caues of the mass of fans which bought her CDs. I mean not even Mozard or Beethoven had so many fans ! ~ Conclusion she must have more talent then both of them combined.

Nice falacy though ...

 

[SharkClub]

That's true of everything, not least the original Fallouts. Those games have so many flaws and holes in them you could waste a lifetime trying to categorize and quantify them. That fact is, they rock despite those things. I don't think FO3 is any different in that respect.

Fallout 2 had quite a few flaws, sure (nowhere near as much as Fallout 3 or Tactics though). But when you reference "the original Fallouts", what exactly in Fallout 1 didn't make sense to you? What wasn't "Fallout-y" in the original Fallout. There really isn't much I can think of, seeing as Fallout 1 defined what Fallout was about and what should follow.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That is your own perception. There are probably several hundred other perceptions of F3 that match yours. Now, there are dozens of thousands of perceptions of F3 that think that it is a good game. Your point that, even though it was enjoyable, it isn't good, is completely irrational.

You ask for steak, I bring you fish. You say that you think steak is better than fish. I say that fish is much more popular than steak so obviously it's better. You say that no matter how good the fish is it can't be better at being steak than the actual steak we used to serve. I say that's just your perception and you're entitled to it but you should accept that fish is the future and that's good. You begin to say something but I stab you in the eye with a fork and run into the kitchen.

You know thats the Reason why I love this Fallout community so damn much

 

[choconutjoe]

That's true of everything, not least the original Fallouts. Those games have so many flaws and holes in them you could waste a lifetime trying to categorize and quantify them. That fact is, they rock despite those things. I don't think FO3 is any different in that respect.

Fallout 2 had quite a few flaws, sure (nowhere near as much as Fallout 3 or Tactics though). But when you reference "the original Fallouts", what exactly in Fallout 1 didn't make sense to you? What wasn't "Fallout-y" in the original Fallout. There really isn't much I can think of, seeing as Fallout 1 defined what Fallout was about and what should follow.

I didn't say it wasn't fallout-y (whatever that is), I said it was flawed, which it is: Crappy path-finding, crappy interface, unfinished quests, a trap skill but no traps etc and so on ad infinitum. The point is just that none of that stuff matters because of the things the game does right, which are so enjoyable. FO3 is no different in that regard.

Also, I think it's questionable that the first game in any IP dictates what 'should' follow. Game devs can make whatever the hell type of game they want. That fact that FO3 deviates from FO1&2 isn't a 'flaw', it's just a fact. EXTENDED METAPHOR ALERT!: The fact that apples are not 'orange-y' doesn't make them bad apples, it just means they aren't oranges.

 

[Crni Vuk]

but I want my damn Orange

 

[Bimmy]

Fallout 3 is a nice game and if it is your first fallout you can love it.
If you played F1\F2 before playing F3, even if you enjoy the game for hours, you can feel there is something wrong with it and be nauseated/annoyed.
How will react Oblivion fans if they find out that the new TES is 3rd perspective isometric turn based with a good story and major C&C elements?

 

[choconutjoe]

but I want my damn Orange

Lol. Moving thought your giant orange pic is, there's nothing about the existence of apples that prevents you from having oranges... Ok, I think the metaphor has now been stretched passed breaking point. The point was simply that FO3, existing and making people happy, doesn't worsen the other games in any way. It's all just apples and oranges (.. and we're back!).

 

[Tagaziel]

I agree, while MW2 can be enjoyable, the earlier titles were much better. For their time, anyway. But the major video game consuming demographic is the kind of people who like games with action, explosions, guns, and guts. Stuff you guys probably find juvenile or something.
However, I can guarantee you that if you took a random group of a million people, the vast majority of them would rank F3 as better than F1 and F2. I think that is what constitutes a "better" or "good" game, is a game that appeals to a lot of people. And almost all major video game reviews for F3 and MW2 were positive, i.e. above 85% score. But those games still suck, right?
I admit, there are a few exceptions, where underground games can be quite good, but these come far and few between. Any game has detractors, people who don't like it, and while they may think it is a bad game, that don't mean it is bad. While goodness and badness is mostly opinion, when most people agree on a certain side, then one can accurately state that it is "good" or "bad". Y'all are on the opposition against F3, so while you are entitled to your opinion, you have to remember that it is just that, an opinion. A fact about the game perceived by the mind, which in everyone is full of bias.

Yes, BigMacs are tasty and people love them. That doesn't change the fact it's simply junk food, not comparable to high cuisine such as sushi.

Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[Crni Vuk]

How will react Oblivion fans if they find out that the new TES is 3rd perspective isometric turn based with a good story and major C&C elements?

Well considering Bethesdas or with other words "Zenimax" ideas for the future this might bear some ... truth. More then original Oblivion fans might love. Of course I dont know it but maybe the next TES game might be some MMORG. Who knows. I am sure there is only one thing people can do which loved Oblivion for its single player experience. Moving on. Jup. Its the future guys. No reason to complain! Just accept it. Buy it. And love it. Particiularly if the marketing tells you that

but I want my damn Orange

Lol. Moving thought your giant orange pic is, there's nothing about the existence of apples that prevents you from having oranges...

but ... but ... yes. That orange is a "old" one. Its long gooone ... now they only sell Oranges which look and taste exactly like Apples *le sigh*

But youre right we should drop this food analogys. I am geting quite hungry ...

 

[Urban Needles]

I like apples and oranges for different reasons. FO3 was a fun game although somewhat dumbed down. FO1 was a bit restricted; you miss so much content if you play as anything but the "Good Guy".

 

[Bimmy]

Moving on. Jup. Its the future guys. No reason to complain! Just accept it. Buy it. And love it. Particiularly if the marketing tells you that

I joined this forum for reasons that are quite close to:

Complaining about good old games being gone

Complaining about the multitude of games that are mass produced AAA pieces of art with no soul.

Trying to find someone that agrees with my idea that the best looking game ever is seikendensetsu3.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Petition to rename this thread the Apples V. Orange thread.

 

[Crni Vuk]

it was sold here as Secret of Mana and I L O V E D that game. Played it million of times. And got all spells to their max level !

 

[NiRv4n4]

Pull your heads out of the sand, ffs. The way that I am saying F3 is better than F2 anf F1 is the same as me saying that cooked steak is better than raw steak. Sure, some people love raw steak, and they can exercise that opinion. But most people prefer their steak cooked. Oh, but cooked steak gets more marketing in commercials, right? Since we see it in Outback Steakhouse commercials, we are obviously having are minds swayed by the media. If they did commercials with raw steak, then most people would DEFINITELY like that kind..., Jesus Christ.... When I think of a game being better or good, I think of it appealing to a lot of people and these people enjoying it. Fallout 3 has more fans than Fallout and Fallout 2. Fallout 3 appealed to more people. And most of these people enjoyed it. Fallout and Fallout 2 appealed to a select group of people, and most of them liked it. So Fallout 3 scores higher.

 

[Ausir]

It's not an apple! It's officially called Orange 3! It might look like an apple and taste like an apple, but it's officially sold under the Orange license, which makes it perfectly orange-y.

When I think of a game being better or good, I think of it appealing to a lot of people and these people enjoying it. Fallout 3 has more fans than Fallout and Fallout 2. Fallout 3 appealed to more people.

The expression you're looking for is "more popular", not "better".

 

[Urban Needles]

It's not an apple! It's officially called Orange 3! It might look like an apple and taste like an apple, but it's officially sold under the Orange license, which makes it perfectly orange-y.

What does that even mean?

Its like this:

Fallout, Fallout 2 and Troika games were for a niche market (thats like my opinion). I don't recall any of those games being marketed anywhere as much as Fallout 3. So then, this company buys the right to Fallout form people that mishandled the franchise and markets the shit out of it. Marketing and making you play an boring game at gun point are two different things (in my opinion, again). So now the franchise has brand awareness due to its popularity, has a strong budgets and its more or less back in the right hands.