What was the Funniest Argument You've had with a Bethesda Apologist?

I wouldn't say funny, but a discussion on the Nexus forums about how the female protagonist in FO4 goes from lawyer house wife to murder death kill in no time flat, he quotes me and responds with...
KHpyY0w.jpg
 
Sergeant Politeness said:
Yeah, well, screaming "NOSTALGIA!!!!!" is way easier than making an actual argument.

I don't really argument with Bethesdrones, espcecially IRL. Nothing good ever comes out of it. But I haves seen people dismissing the RPGCodex review on Reddit because the author "sounds like a cynical cunt". I have even seen someone claims the review seemed like it was written by a COD/TF2 fanoby.

Of course, there are those who claims that it's all a matter of opinion, and you can therefore not say that the writing is bad, or that the urgency doesn't fit in an open world.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure. And poop doesn't stink I guess and fairies are real ;)
 
This just in.

*Someone argued why Fallout 4 is not a Fallout game, here's why*

"Well this exploded hilariously while I was gone, and sure, it isn't designed the same way, but at the end of the day, Fallout 4 is a Fallout game, just like Tactics, 2, Brotherhood of Steel, 3 and New Vegas are. But I'm going to assume that most of you will find that in your latitude of rejection, and therefore it is pointless to try and say anything else, because I'll just be bombarded with strawman arguments again."
Click to expand...
 
MercenarySnake said:
Skyrim? Nope nope nope. That shallow garbage can't compete with good games from back then.
Click to expand...
Hell I can even think of tons of games from the top of my head from the 80's that I played for way more hours than I did with Skyrim :confused:
  • The Oregon Trail
  • The Seven Cities of Gold
  • Wizardry
  • King's Quest IV
  • Pool of Radiance
  • Wasteland
  • Sid Meier's Pirates!
  • Ultima IV
  • The Ancient Art of War
  • M.U.L.E.
Those are just ten, I bet if I spend a few minutes thinking of the old ages when I was a kid I would get twice as much games :lmao:.

But now to keep this thread going:
I love RPGs, but Fallout 1 wasn't doing it. Fallout 2's pretty good and all, but some parts feel laking.
For one the dialogue options don't feel much different than any other fallout. Be a dick, be a sarcastic dick, be a good guy, or ask for more money. The only difference is a 'No' option, but in all reality not doing quests in an RPG game is like ordering a pizza, and not eating the pizza. In my honest opinion, I enjoy every fallout game, but all for different reasons. I love text based games, so fallout 2 worked for me, I like games that have heavy rpg elements so Fallout 3, and New Vegas worked for me, and I like games that are heavy on narritive with RPG elements so Fallout 4 worked for me.
Click to expand...
I made some interesting bits bold >_>
 
Its always nice to encounter the random forum thread full of face palm and poison.

At Magfest I encountered a FO3 acolyte who was in a Fallout discussion in a similar pitch to a religious zealot. During the entire discussion this particular individual was absolutely buzzing with FO4 hype and how FO3 was the best game ever so obviously FO4 was going to be better.

Confused as to why this individual was promoting a game that was as of yet not released to thousands of game enthusiasts, I confronted them to put them back into perspective.

As other original Fallout Fans and myself attempted to have a logical debate about this topic with who I will now refer to as the "Beth Zealot" things began to escalate out of hand rather quickly.

While we would make valid arguments based on observation and fact the Beth Zealot would reject all the information and plainly state that we were objectively wrong and lore/styles from the previous games were no longer valid and are considered non cannon.

I'm sure you can all understand that when the original Fallout fans heard this they began debating much harder to prove this zealot wrong.

After what I could only assume was 2 hours the Beth Zealot had resorted to throwing them self onto the ground and began throwing a temper tantrum as if they were a small child who was just rejected candy. As we watched a grown man wiggle hilariously on the ground we found ourselves wondering as a collective group. Have we been arguing with a mentally handicapped person this entire time?

As we began to disperse the Zealot's girlfriend came over to collect her man child as he was making a scene the likes of which security from MagFest would have to intervene.

This is the degree of stupid we as a group put up with. To be honest I cannot fathom a reasonable circumstance a reasonable debate should devolve in such a manner.
 
What is the fucking point in posting the "funniest" arguements for someone defending something they are a fan of? Seriously, what is the fucking point?

I want to believe that the users of this website, as they claim, are intelligent, thoughtful, generally nice people. But when threads like this one, in which "Bethesda Apologists" (fuck that phrase) are bashed because they supposedly make more irrational arguements then this website, just make me more convinced that this site is a hivemind of vitriolic spew.

There is no point in belittling other people, other fans of the same franchise, because they solely have a personal preference. Oh, and don't think that all arguements on this website aren't irrational:

Brahmin Noodles said:
No, I think it's safe to say that FO1, 2, and NVs' writing is objectively better, if not entirely because they actually make sense and aren't horribly ridden with plot holes. Honestly, with all the hundreds of millions of dollars Bethesda has, they really can't get anyone better than fucking Emil? They must keep him on the team out of pity, or something.
Click to expand...

"Brahmin Noodles" literally states that, objectively, one games writing (something this is subjective) is better than another. How is this not irrational?

I expect hate threads for games on this site, which I can ignore, not immature hate threads that bash the worst of a community.

Honestly, FlashBash64, what is the point of this thread?
 
Einhanderc7 said:
While we would make valid arguments based on observation and fact the Beth Zealot would reject all the information and plainly state that we were objectively wrong and lore/styles from the previous games were no longer valid and are considered non cannon.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Bethesda never dropped F1 & F2. I think you've encountered some ignorant zealot rather than just ordinary beth zealot, who must own Fallout Anthology or at least know about it. Or at least know about FNV since it's still published by Bethesda.
 
Superman said:
What is the fucking point in posting the "funniest" arguements for someone defending something they are a fan of? Seriously, what is the fucking point?

.....

Honestly, FlashBash64, what is the point of this thread?
Click to expand...
He did stated that he wanted to have a good laugh. Well, I personally only lose my faith in humanity slowly. You can also say this thread was meant as a compilation of rather poorly-put-together/baseless/logical fallacy-ed arguments, that those who participate in this thread tried to remember if they ever encounter such things, and then share the experiences.

If you look it at another way, this thread doesn't exactly meant to belittle the apologist, but rather the arguments made by apologist. This thread might be much more active in doing that, but if you look at some of the site user's signature (like mine), this site have been doing what this thread is doing in a passive way.

Besides, like has been said again and again, there's nothing wrong in enjoying a game. It's just that, there's a difference between saying, "This is a good game." and, "This is a game I enjoy." We're not belittling arguments saying they enjoy the game, but we do belittle arguments trying to say those as good games.

Superman said:
"Brahmin Noodles" literally states that, objectively, one games writing (something this is subjective) is better than another. How is this not irrational?
Click to expand...
Writing IS objective, though? Like, you ought to know better if a scientific essay is written properly vs. those which are not. Video games as a medium of art, while still rather young in comparison to books, are beginning to show its' strength in writing aspect. Objectively speaking, Planescape: Torment is THE Best written cRPG of all time, if not THE Best cRPG of all time. Of course, all those writing means nothing for those who had a mindset that video games were meant for fun, or rather, mindless fun, that you don't have to care for writing.

So, I think when you mean 'subjective', did you mean for people who don't care whether a game's writing is good or not?
 
Black Angel said:
He did stated that he wanted to have a good laugh. Well, I personally only lose my faith in humanity slowly. You can also say this thread was meant as a compilation of rather poorly-put-together/baseless/logical fallacy-ed arguments, that those who participate in this thread tried to remember if they ever encounter such things, and then share the experiences.

If you look it at another way, this thread doesn't exactly meant to belittle the apologist, but rather the arguments made by apologist. This thread might be much more active in doing that, but if you look at some of the site user's signature (like mine), this site have been doing what this thread is doing in a passive way.

Besides, like has been said again and again, there's nothing wrong in enjoying a game. It's just that, there's a difference between saying, "This is a good game." and, "This is a game I enjoy." We're not belittling arguments saying they enjoy the game, but we do belittle arguments trying to say those as good games.


Writing IS objective, though? Like, you ought to know better if a scientific essay is written properly vs. those which are not. Video games as a medium of art, while still rather young in comparison to books, are beginning to show its' strength in writing aspect. Objectively speaking, Planescape: Torment is THE Best written cRPG of all time, if not THE Best cRPG of all time. Of course, all those writing means nothing for those who had a mindset that video games were meant for fun, or rather, mindless fun, that you don't have to care for writing.

So, I think when you mean 'subjective', did you mean for people who don't care whether a game's writing is good or not?
Click to expand...

If a scientific essay is written poorly, it either has bad spelling, or incorrect facts. These things make it objectively bad because they are measurable, and cannot be influenced by opinion.

I could say the writing in Planescape: Torment is bad because I don't like the dialogue of the characters, or the story doesn't make sense because, well, how does the Nameless One die if he is immortal? There is no end to how much you can nitpick writing, and as such, isn't measurable.

The quality of writing of any given medium of entertainment is subjective because it is percieved, not measured.

Also, no one deserves to be bashed because you hate what they like. People presenting arguments of why Fallout 3/4 is a good game do so because they enjoy it.
 
Superman said:
What is the fucking point in posting the "funniest" arguements for someone defending something they are a fan of? Seriously, what is the fucking point?

I want to believe that the users of this website, as they claim, are intelligent, thoughtful, generally nice people. But when threads like this one, in which "Bethesda Apologists" (fuck that phrase) are bashed because they supposedly make more irrational arguements then this website, just make me more convinced that this site is a hivemind of vitriolic spew.

There is no point in belittling other people, other fans of the same franchise, because they solely have a personal preference. Oh, and don't think that all arguements on this website aren't irrational:



"Brahmin Noodles" literally states that, objectively, one games writing (something this is subjective) is better than another. How is this not irrational?

I expect hate threads for games on this site, which I can ignore, not immature hate threads that bash the worst of a community.

Honestly, FlashBash64, what is the point of this thread?
Click to expand...
How can we belittle the people if all we are doing is quoting exactly what those people said? Wouldn't that mean they are belittling themselves?

This thread is for the most ridiculous arguments people use when defending Bethesda games, we are not doing anything to attack those, all we do is using their own words and I even went so far as to not mention names on my quotes as to not make my posts personal.

Also yeah we might make fun of this comments because they are ridiculous, and that is what we do around here, no matter if it is Fallout 3 or 4 or New Vegas or 1 or 2 or whatever, when people make stupid comments we make fun of them, if I wrote something like: "I love Fallout New Vegas because it has deep cooking mechanics and we can find aliens in a specific part of the game, also my character can drink beers and shoot indestructible glass bottles. All of that makes Fallout New Vegas the best Fallout game ever" I would be made fun of without any hesitation.
 
Risewild said:
How can we belittle the people if all we are doing is quoting exactly what those people said? Wouldn't that mean they are belittling themselves?

This thread is for the most ridiculous arguments people use when defending Bethesda games, we are not doing anything to attack those, all we do is using their own words and I even went so far as to not mention names on my quotes as to not make my posts personal.

Also yeah we might make fun of this comments because they are ridiculous, and that is what we do around here, no matter if it is Fallout 3 or 4 or New Vegas or 1 or 2 or whatever, when people make stupid comments we make fun of them, if I wrote something like: "I love Fallout New Vegas because it has deep cooking mechanics and we can find aliens in a specific part of the game, also my character can drink beers and shoot indestructible glass bottles. All of that makes Fallout New Vegas the best Fallout game ever" I would be made fun of without any hesitation.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen on this thread, most of the arguments are fair, not wildly irrational or factually wrong. Everyone deserves the right to have their opinion respected, not belittled because you percieved it to be blantely wrong. Take this "funny" opinion for example:
...I like games that are heavy on narrative with rpg elements so Fallout 4 worked for me.
Click to expand...

This is not ridiculous, irrational or wrong, and completely fair to say. He is expressing his opinion on why he likes Fallout 4 as a Fallout game, to him.

Also, if calling someone wrong and an idiot isn't attacking, I don't know what is:
BairdEC said:
Geeze, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one, on the level of both blaming Mossad and praising bin Ladin for 9/11 in the same breath....

Unless, perhaps, he considers a strong railroad plot line to be "heavy on narritive [sic]...."
Click to expand...

BairdEC is calling this person stupid, comparing the fact he feels Fallout 4 works for him, not for everyone, but himself, to someone supporting terrorism, and no one objects to this? I think this ridicule sounds more irrational then the apparent "funny" comment.

Can you see why this thread pisses me off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top