Tom Chick responds to Wired piece

[Jesuit]

Fact: It uses the Oblivion engine.
Fact: It has guns.

So... bloodlines is half-life with vampires then?
The Witcher is Never Winter nights with tarot sex cards?
All of these games are various shades of unreal?

I could go on and on...

Fact: your statement is a gross oversimplification of many factors.

As for the rest of your post. You make a very compelling point, and game journalism is crap. This kind of logic veers heavily into the flawed "two wrongs make a right" territory. I could count the number of worthwhile previews I've read on Django Reinhardt's left hand. I can only guess why they went and singled this piece out, but defending it is a sad exercise. After all, no one here has failed to point out the problems with most of the positive previews before this happened, why can't they do the same with negative ones?

 

[goffy59]

And how many bethesda games have been purposefully and deliberately designed with a complex storyline, intricate characters, and deep underlying moral and philosophical questions in mind as they key selling points of the game?

Oblivion wasn't meant to have a better storyline or writing than Planescape Torment. From a marketing perspective, that makes sense as most casual gamers (a lovely bracket term for 13-year old Neo-wannabes and soccer moms) can't be bothered to go through all those boring letters.

F3 is targetting the somewhat more hardcore audience though. Not the casuals, that's for sure. But not the basement-dweling Nethack/Slash'em player who refuses to play anything other than textmode either.

I disagree.

 

[terebikun]

Instead you see a raped women crying on the floor asking for help.(Sorry if you don't understand my analogy)

Ugh. Comparing Fallout 3 to rape is like the new Godwin's law.

Yeah, because smearing fans is SO much classier than smearing a game.

Some fans were just made to be smeared. But not us of course. I'm looking in your direction, Juggalos.

 

[Imperial Guard]

erm ... why do you care what some random guy says on some random forum at 70ish page of some random thread ?
not like its big news imo ...

Indeed. There is little point to following more of the same drivel. I definitively lost interest in the game a week or two back when their antics got considerably out of hand.

However, besides in and of themselves these posts being meant as a newsfeed on a fan site, it is interesting to see just how much of the gaming industry Beth has in hand. And how laughably pathetic people can be

 

[Imperial Guard]

There's no room for dialogue with people like Tom; lol heartily at their pathetic nerd rage fanboyism. Can't debate with idiots. They're too stupid to see where they're wrong. Or pathetic

Wonder what the "perks" are in it for him

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Fact: It uses the Oblivion engine.
Fact: It has guns.

So... bloodlines is half-life with vampires then?

Nope. Half-Life doesn't have a character creation system or dialogue system. Both of those were built by Troika from scratch specifically for Bloodlines. Fallout 3 uses a tweaked variation of Oblivion's dialogue system. The skills are certainly different but both games had skills as opposed to your Half-Life / Bloodlines comparison. Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also being made by the same company, with most of the same people. Bloodlines was made by an entirely different company to Valve.

The Witcher is Never Winter nights with tarot sex cards?

Actually, to a degree it is. Both are RPGs with relatively similar skill systems, dialogue systems and so on. Made by different companies though.

All of these games are various shades of unreal?

Actually "various shades of Unreal" would be appropriate for some of those but certainly not all.

I could go on and on...

Fact: your statement is a gross oversimplification of many factors.

Fact: Bethesda are calling Fallout 3 "Oblivion with guns". Are any of your other examples touted by their creators as "Unreal with X"? Was Bloodlines sold as "Half-Life with Vampires"? Nope. If the developers of the game call it "Oblivion with guns", why wouldn't we?

"If you're talking to an enthusiast, there are so many differences, and we feel it's under-selling the game to say it's Oblivion with guns. But when we started talking to more consumer-oriented magazines, we'd have, like, two seconds...and we'd say, 'it's like post-apocalyptic Oblivion with guns.' And they're like, 'Awesome!' To Joe Public, it's mainly first-peron, wide-open game and you get to do what you want. The game it's closest to is Oblivion. So now when someone asks, 'Is it Oblivion with guns?' my main answer is, 'in all the best ways.'"

After all, no one here has failed to point out the problems with most of the positive previews before this happened, why can't they do the same with negative ones?

I think you'll find some people have. Do you think everyone should do it though? That everyone should start adding disclaimers? "Fallout 3 sounds awesome! Disclaimer: Assuming what they say in this article is true. I reserve the right to alter my opinion as new information comes to light. If new information comes to light and it re-inforces my opinion, I reserve the right to state as much".

If you really want to go down that path, you're left with "we don't know shit about this game, it could be awesome or it could suck". That's despite everything that's been said. Clearly people are able to make some reasonable, basic deducations based on varying levels of information. If I read a page of a book and it's "Spot saw the ball. Spot ran after the ball. Spot had fun!" I think I can make a reasonable judgement as to the quality and intended audience of the rest of the book, even from that single 10 second paragraph.

All you're really stating is that people can form different opinions based on the same information.

 

[ushdugery]

You can finish fallout 1 in under thirty minutes. They said the core gameplay in fallout 3 is supposed to be what 20 hours? half and hour seems like a fair amount to me.

 

[Jesuit]

Nope. Half-Life doesn't have a character creation system or dialogue system. Both of those were built by Troika from scratch specifically for Bloodlines. Fallout 3 uses a tweaked variation of Oblivion's dialogue system. The skills are certainly different but both games had skills as opposed to your Half-Life / Bloodlines comparison. Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also being made by the same company, with most of the same people. Bloodlines was made by an entirely different company to Valve.

Oh? So there is more to it than just the engine and the weapons used? From what I know about Oblivion (I haven't played it) there are a number of key differences between the games. Of course, my original point was that me and any number of fans who haven't bothered to play Oblivion will not see the game as Oblivion with guns simply because we have no experience with Oblivion. Thus, it is false to claim that that is how this game will be regarded by the entire fallout fan base.

Fact: Bethesda are calling Fallout 3 "Oblivion with guns". Are any of your other examples touted by their creators as "Unreal with X"? Was Bloodlines sold as "Half-Life with Vampires"? Nope. If the developers of the game call it "Oblivion with guns", why wouldn't we?

"If you're talking to an enthusiast, there are so many differences, and we feel it's under-selling the game to say it's Oblivion with guns. But when we started talking to more consumer-oriented magazines, we'd have, like, two seconds...and we'd say, 'it's like post-apocalyptic Oblivion with guns.' And they're like, 'Awesome!' To Joe Public, it's mainly first-peron, wide-open game and you get to do what you want. The game it's closest to is Oblivion. So now when someone asks, 'Is it Oblivion with guns?' my main answer is, 'in all the best ways.'"

You're reading that quote in the way you want to. All I see is Todd Howard saying that 'Oblivion With Guns' works when you only have 10 seconds and you want to appeal to a bunch of console readers. That sounds like a solid marketing strategy to me given Oblivion's success.

But, Todd Howard's word isn't exactly trusted around here so why quote him? Here's a perspective from the NMA community:

It's on the same engine, by the same makers, using a number of mechanics similar to the Oblivion game. But Fallout 3 is even less similar to Oblivion than Oblivion was to Morrowind. Todd Howard has stated a will to reinvent each new game, and that's the case here. (ref)

So rather than Oblivion with Guns, what we have here is a conglomerate of influences from a whole bunch of games.

This is from the NMA fallout preview. I don't know what to make of this all but Fallout was certainly more than a set of game mechanics to me. Maybe not for you?

All you're really stating is that people can form different opinions based on the same information.

Actually what I'm saying is if this community is going to spend most of its days ripping apart previews of the game then they should be willing to tolerate the same from other communities. The only real difference I see between what goes on here and Tom's post is that Tom has actual game play experience to back up why he thinks the Wired preview was unfairly harsh. I'm all for tearing apart and exposing bullshit in previews, that's why I read these comments, but it's a little incongruous to go into super-duper-defensive mode when other people do it.

Edited for clarity.

 

[Jesuit]

You are forgetting that Fallout 3 has ushered in the super-duper age.. so I think you mean super-duper defensive mode.

Thanks, I fixed it.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Nope. Half-Life doesn't have a character creation system or dialogue system. Both of those were built by Troika from scratch specifically for Bloodlines. Fallout 3 uses a tweaked variation of Oblivion's dialogue system. The skills are certainly different but both games had skills as opposed to your Half-Life / Bloodlines comparison. Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also being made by the same company, with most of the same people. Bloodlines was made by an entirely different company to Valve.

Oh? So there is more to it than just the engine and the weapons used?

I didn't realise I had to make a comprehensive list of the obvious. "Oblivion with guns" is being used as a euphemism. If you don't know what one of those is, now's the time to look it up.

From what I know about Oblivion (I haven't played it)

Then how can you say it's not Oblivion with guns? What you're really saying is "you don't know". If I get a Chrysler Crossfire and add guns to it, then say it's a "Chrysler Crossfire with guns", are you going to tell me I don't know that, simply because you've never personally seen a Chrysler Crossfire? Bethesda have stated now on several occasions that they took the Oblivion engine, tweaked it and added guns (among other things) and they refer to it as "Oblivion with guns" themselves.

Of course, my original point was that me and any number of fans who haven't bothered to play Oblivion will not see the game as Oblivion with guns simply because we have no experience with Oblivion. Thus, it is false to claim that that is how this game will be regarded by the entire fallout fan base.

Nope, nothing was ever said of the sort about the "entire Fallout fan base". Goral's comment which you originally replied to was:

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.

Your reply was three-fold:

1) There are no facts to suggest this game is like Oblivion (facts you seem to be accepting above?)
2) The people who have said so expressed their opinion, that is not a fact.
3) You personally won't consider it as Oblivion with guns as you've never played Oblivion.

You've taken a literal interpretation of Goral's statement. Of course he doesn't mean "everyone on the entire planet" because that would be absurd. Only a retard would think Goral (or anyone else for that matter) meant anything like that. Are you retarded? You don't seem to be. The fact is (and yes, it is a fact) that several previews have referred to the game as "Oblivion with guns" in both a good and bad context. "Oblivion with guns" is being used to describe the game by the game's developers. In general, right now, a large number of people perceive Fallout 3 as being "Oblivion with guns" in some form or another.

As such, for good or bad, the game is percieved as being "Oblivion with guns". If you want to argue semantics, feel free to add "Oblivion with guns in a different setting with robots" and whatever else you might care to include.

Fact: Bethesda are calling Fallout 3 "Oblivion with guns". Are any of your other examples touted by their creators as "Unreal with X"? Was Bloodlines sold as "Half-Life with Vampires"? Nope. If the developers of the game call it "Oblivion with guns", why wouldn't we?

"If you're talking to an enthusiast, there are so many differences, and we feel it's under-selling the game to say it's Oblivion with guns. But when we started talking to more consumer-oriented magazines, we'd have, like, two seconds...and we'd say, 'it's like post-apocalyptic Oblivion with guns.' And they're like, 'Awesome!' To Joe Public, it's mainly first-peron, wide-open game and you get to do what you want. The game it's closest to is Oblivion. So now when someone asks, 'Is it Oblivion with guns?' my main answer is, 'in all the best ways.'"

You're reading that quote in the way you want to.

So Todd Howard isn't calling his own game "Oblivion with guns"? The mind boggles.

All I see is Todd Howard saying that 'Oblivion With Guns' works when you only have 10 seconds and you want to appeal to a bunch of console readers. That sounds like a solid marketing strategy to me given Oblivion's success.

But, Todd Howard's word isn't exactly trusted around here so why quote him?

Are you now adding your own opinion as to whom we can and cannot trust? Todd Howard is the Executive Producer of Fallout. And that's a fact. If he considers his own game to be "Oblivion with guns", why wouldn't everyone else use that term, like they are doing right now? You even said yourself, it's good marketing! If that's the case, everyone should be referring to the game as such. So why is it inappropriate for others to use that euphimism when referring to the game? If someone invents a new machine that they call a "computer" and several other people start calling it a computer, even if there's one guy out there that still thinks it's a "calculating machine", it doesn't really matter. Most will still think it's a computer.

Here's the perspective of the NMA community:

It's on the same engine, by the same makers, using a number of mechanics similar to the Oblivion game. But Fallout 3 is even less similar to Oblivion than Oblivion was to Morrowind. Todd Howard has stated a will to reinvent each new game, and that's the case here. (ref)

So rather than Oblivion with Guns, what we have here is a conglomerate of influences from a whole bunch of games.

This is coming from the man who said "Keep in mind, opinions aren't facts". That just appears to be someone's opinion.

This is from the NMA fallout preview. I don't know what to make of this all but Fallout was certainly more than a set of game mechanics to me. Maybe not for you?

We'll see what happens when you encounter underground tunnel full of bad guys to kill number #374... ala Oblivion.

Actually what I'm saying is if this community is going to spend most of its days ripping apart previews of the game then they should be willing to tolerate the same from other communities.

I think we are. People even said "really surpised by the Wired blog" when it was posted. Brother None even said "ouch man, ouch". NMA's actually ripped apart both the good and the bad previews. It certainly didn't appear to be picked up and lauded as "finally, an honest preview" which seems to be what Tom and others are implying.

The only real difference I see between what goes on here and Tom's post is that Tom has actual game play experience to back up why he thinks the Wired preview was unfairly harsh.

Wired has game-play experience and thinks bad things. Tom has game-play experience and thinks Wired have launched a smear campaign and have been infiltrated by NMA. So speaking of opinion which completely lacks any facts... If Tom has half an hour which he deems enough to see "preliminary bits of awesomeness" and is able to judge that in his view, the characters were "plenty likeable", then there's plenty of time for someone else to make their own judgements too. Just because Tom doesn't agree, doesn't mean Wired has been infiltrated or has launched some kind of smear campaign.

I'm all for tearing apart and exposing bullshit in previews, that's why I read these comments, but it's a little incongruous to go into super-defensive mode when other people do it.

Tom directly accused NMA of infiltrating Wired so they could bad-mouth the game with a smear campaign. I think that warrants a pretty robust response, don't you? Considering we are on NMA right now. If Tom had simply called the Wired review harsh, it probably would've been ignored like all the other responses to Wired's blog. He didn't though. He went further than that. So far as to suggest that anyone who harshly criticizes Fallout 3, even after they've played the game, must be an "NMA goofball".

 

[Jesuit]

Are you serious? "Debating" you requires mental contortions I'm not really willing to do. Good luck.

 

[Tagaziel]

surroundedbyidiots

No drama from this point forward, under the penalty of ban.

 

[hatchen]

These debates, i do have to say get very lively. What I find most interesting is when nma bashers or the like come on in, try and start a fight and loose to logic. They aren't prepared for people who are willing to actually trying to reason and to carefully think things through before they are going to write.

It's entertaining reading their responses when they give up, usually it's along the lines of " You can't be reasoned with". Too bad for them that irony says different.

 

[BunkerBud]

Are you serious? "Debating" you requires mental contortions I'm not really willing to do. Good luck.

-Ruined

 

[radnan]

Its a controversy that generates visits/comments so basically any divisive issue is an attention goldmine for douchebags. Its sad really because i thought the Wired article was balanced but in no way favouring one point of view .. proper shit ..

 

[archont]

The problem with the games today is that you need massive resources. Save for a few notable examples, such as Uplink, Defcon or certain OS games you usually need a lot of manhours. I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'm guessing F3 will take five to ten times the amount of work F1 took.

And as such you need to attract people. You need people to buy the product. I'm quite sure most of the casual gamer population don't read many books and there are quite a few books they would enjoy. But they lack the stimuli, the advertising for it. Even if going to the library costs nothing it's still too much effort.

So think in different terms please. If you were given 10 seconds to recommend, say, A Clockwork Orange to your moderately bright friend, what would you say?

The same goes for the oblivion with guns thing. It's marketing aimed at the lowest common denominator. It's a gesture towards the players with an INT of 4 or less. People who are not capable or willing to digest more information at one time without feeling overwhelmed. Those kinds of people won't enjoy the game to it's fullest, but their dollars are just as good as Brother None's.

 

[radnan]

@archont

If its marketed to the lowest common denominator it must so far be the lowest common denominator since all i've seen is a mediocre conglomerate of elements stacked together. I have not seen anything to suggest this is only a marketing thing.

Just because a lot of effort and money is put into something doesn't make it good or worthy.

I will support things i believe are more then effort and marketing

That have something akin to cultural value. I think the first 2 games had that.

 

[FeelTheRads]

After all, no one here has failed to point out the problems with most of the positive previews before this happened, why can't they do the same with negative ones?

As long as no-one else points the problems with the positive previews, why would we point out the problems with the negative ones?

In fact, I see no problem with those negative reviews among the tons of retardness created by the gaming media. I just take them as a breath of fresh air.

 

[waldo]

It's a mystery to me how Earnest Cav. can make pronouncements like he's made based on the thirty minutes of time we get at E3.

little in the way of hedging to conceal the author's judgment, even of a storyline he saw only half an hour of

BUT you guys can make statements fellating the game that don't conceal your own judgement despite the fact that you've only played half an hour of it yourselves?

Erm, right.

 

[radnan]

BUT you guys can make statements fellating the game that don't conceal your own judgement despite the fact that you've only played half an hour of it yourselves?

Erm, right.

We're not journalists (speaking for myself) .. we're fans -

Also i doubt most gaming journalists ever went to a Journalism Class or University or have any regard for journalism ethics. They're mostly fans who can write ... and as such they just have opinions and a privileged position (which can lead to bias)