Tom Chick responds to Wired piece

This guy needs to figure out what a smear is.

Playing a game, and expressing your disappointment with it, isn't quite the same thing as trashing someone's credibility based on their opinion on something.

So now we're at the point where if you have honest problems with the direction of the Fallout franchise then you're "smearing Bethesda".

I wonder how much under-the-table money some of these guys get.
 
No, the Wired Blog was incredibly poorly written. Let's look at some of the things he posted.
"Though the story and characters are suitably gritty and conflicted, none of them are terribly likeable and the entire thing"
Click to expand...
It's shit like none and entire when he played for 30 minutes that makes this entry so crappy. This wouldn't be a problem if he said none of the characters I met instead of covering the entire cast. In fact he used words that cover the whole game (entire, all, none) without qualification 7 times.
At best Fallout 3 will be the blacksheep of the series
Click to expand...
This is not an impression, this a staring into a crystal ball and predicting the future of a game based on a 30 minute preview. A pretty laughable prediction as long as FOBOS exists.
 
Anani Masu said:
This is not an impression, this a staring into a crystal ball and predicting the future of a game based on a 30 minute preview.
Click to expand...

Let's say I agree; do you then want to comment on the fact that previewers are given carte blanche to declare the whole game to be awesome and bestest based on the same impressions?
 
Per said:
Anani Masu said:
This is not an impression, this a staring into a crystal ball and predicting the future of a game based on a 30 minute preview.
Click to expand...

Let's say I agree; do you then want to comment on the fact that previewers are given carte blanche to declare the whole game to be awesome and bestest based on the same impressions?
Click to expand...

Sure, they are idiots too and shouldn't be given much credence.
 
I've only really seen like two or three previews that I think were well written. If i read one more description of the V.A.T.S. system I'm going to puke. That being said, the Wired preview wasn't one of them.

I can't remember every preview but in my experience journalists tend to say things like "we can't know for sure but based on what I've seen fallout 3 is shaping up to be all kinds of awesome!!" while giving a thumbs up. This is largely different than making an outright prediction that the game is perfectly awesome or destined for black sheep status. Although, I would argue that the difference is largely cosmetic as we can hopefully assume that the Wired previewer presumed that the required qualifiers were a given.
 
If you look around gaming forums you'll see how wide spread disapproval of any negative criticism is. Basically the general consensus is that if you don't like how a game is shaping up you better shut up.
 
I love how there is not enough information to write a negative preview, but more than enough information for a positive one.
 
Anani Masu said:
(...)
It's shit like none and entire when he played for 30 minutes that makes this entry so crappy. This wouldn't be a problem if he said none of the characters I met instead of covering the entire cast. In fact he used words that cover the whole game (entire, all, none) without qualification 7 times.
Click to expand...
It's the same as adding "IMO" to every post I write just because some retards can't figure out that I'm talking in my own name not everyone's. You're manipulating now, taking author's words out of context. You didn't somehow quote this fragment:

Unfortunately, as my half an hour with the game a few moments ago demonstrated, all the external pieces are there, but the charm that made the series such a classic is almost entirely lacking.
Click to expand...
Only retard would think that after half an hour author is judging whole game, it's not his fault someone like Tom Chick is jumping to conclusions. In fact Wire's journalist is much more objective than your idols praising Bethesda's pukes.

That's not to say it won't be good; Shooter fans and those who loved Bethesda's Oblivion will probably adore the freedom offered by the game's open-world post-apocalyptic setting.

Dyed in the wool Fallout fans, however, may not be so pleased.
Click to expand...

Anani Masu said:
This is not an impression, this a staring into a crystal ball and predicting the future of a game based on a 30 minute preview. A pretty laughable prediction as long as FOBOS exists.
Click to expand...
Judging by facts we know so far his statement is valid, Fallout 3 will be considered Oblivion with guns, not Fallout sequel. You don't need crystal ball to know that.
 
this is all pretty funny to me. previews are for the most part bullshit, and shouldn't be paid much attention to. making fun of the other journalist and saying that he must be from nma is even better. how can you not look at that and laugh a bit?
 
Goral said:
Judging by facts we know so far his statement is valid, Fallout 3 will be considered Oblivion with guns, not Fallout sequel. You don't need crystal ball to know that.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to start with that one. Which facts? Keep in mind, opinions aren't facts.

Who will consider it Oblivion with guns? Unless you mean everyone, which I know from your post you don't, are you implying that one group of people's perception is going to be more valid than another group's? How will the validity of these opinions be ranked?

I won't consider it Oblivion with guns, but that's because I never played Oblivion, I would never play a fantasy RPG. I'm not entirely sure but I think there are a few fallout fans like me. Whether or not it's a 'true fallout sequel' for people like me is going to depend largely on the story, and the overall atmosphere of the game... something which we know close to nothing about.
 
Goral said:
You're manipulating now, taking author's words out of context. You didn't somehow quote this fragment:

Unfortunately, as my half an hour with the game a few moments ago demonstrated, all the external pieces are there, but the charm that made the series such a classic is almost entirely lacking.
Click to expand...
Only retard would think that after half an hour author is judging whole game, it's not his fault someone like Tom Chick is jumping to conclusions. In fact Wire's journalist is much more objective than your idols praising Bethesda's pukes.
Click to expand...
That quote really doesn't help his case. A half hour split between walking around/talking/combat has somehow proven that the new game is "entirely lacking" in the old games charm. This isn't me twisting his words, that is what he wrote. You apparently can use your psychic powers to not only look beyond what he wrote and into his thought but also know that I have "idols" that I'm mounting a defence of instead of shitting on a crappy article.
That's not to say it won't be good; Shooter fans and those who loved Bethesda's Oblivion will probably adore the freedom offered by the game's open-world post-apocalyptic setting.

Dyed in the wool Fallout fans, however, may not be so pleased.
Click to expand...
Anani Masu said:
This is not an impression, this a staring into a crystal ball and predicting the future of a game based on a 30 minute preview. A pretty laughable prediction as long as FOBOS exists.
Click to expand...
Judging by facts we know so far his statement is valid, Fallout 3 will be considered Oblivion with guns, not Fallout sequel. You don't need crystal ball to know that.
Click to expand...
Alright lets ignore the fact that FOBOS is widely regarded as shit and sold around 25k thus making it pretty much the definitive black sheep of fallout. Who gets to determine blacksheep status? There are lots of fallout fans who are interested in seeing how FO3 turns out even if it won't be precisely like the originals. There are going to be millions more for whom this is their first fallout and probably their favorite. Do they get to retroactively make the first games black sheep? I'm pretty confident the correct answer is that talking about blacksheep at all at this stage is dumb.
 
So how long do these journalists have to play the game before they can predict what a game might be like in a ... preview?

I mean, what exactly is a preview if it's not showing us what's going to be in the game... and then isn't prediction built into the beast itself?

The entire ( :wink: ) argument, "how can he say the whole thing's gonna suck based on 30 minutes!?" is ridiculous.
 
sai | GLYPH said:
So how long do these journalists have to play the game before they can predict what a game might be like in a ... preview?

I mean, what exactly is a preview if it's not showing us what's going to be in the game... and then isn't prediction built into the beast itself?

The entire ( :wink: ) argument, "how can he say the whole thing's gonna suck based on 30 minutes!?" is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

First: the game isn't polished yet. Though I don't know how much that matters, ignore this argument if you don't think it does.

Second: I see what you're saying to some extent, but then I remembered that I spent the first hour or so of Fallout 2 punching geckos in the head and talking to dull NPCs who were too dumb to know that I had already finished the quests they were telling me about. Fallout 2 doesn't start to get good for me until the Den.

Third: I tend to play quicker and dirtier when you know you only have 30 minutes. It's definitely not enough time to sink into the atmosphere... for me at least. Other people might be different.

So there's some room for misinterpretation there.
 
I really don't see how this is news, especially since it's just a post on a forum for god's sake. Yeah, I don't agree dismissing the article entirely, but the article itself isn't very well done. It talks about the game not feeling right, but doesn't elaborate on the point much. Along the lines of:
The key problem with the game though is in the writing. It really feels like someone wrote a fanfic based on the Fallout universe and somehow got the funding to create a game based on it. Though the story and characters are suitably gritty and conflicted, none of them are terribly likeable and the entire thing simply feels like it's trying too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors.
Click to expand...
So the writing isn't good, but it IS good, but it's too similar to the originals?

Eh. I dunno. I read and post over there, and that thread in particular irritates me about as much as this place. Just generally have to choose if I want incoherent Fallout 3 rage scattered with nuggets of solid discussion, or incoherent NMA rage scattered with nuggets of solid discussion and dinosaur pictures.
 
Y'see kids, the storyline is a tricky thing. Five minutes are enough to play around with the looks and the feel. Maybe ten minutes are all you need to figure out how the gameplay works. You won't be darn good at it, but you'll have the hang of things.

Now the storyline is a different beast. But y'all ain't stupid, so I'ma gonna just give you an example to think about. How much can you tell about the complex storyline, the intricacies of the characters, and the underlying moral and philosophical questions of a book after reading, say, 30 pages?

Those of you who say that's just about enough, well damn, I'll have to drop by yours place for clairvoyancy lessons some day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top