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

Risewild said:
I am pretty sure people got confused about the reviewer saying those things and not your wording. :drunk:
Click to expand...
I thought that people would be less surprised that someone whose idea of a Catherine review is "anime is shit" with one Q*bert reference would be talking out his ass.

Jogre said:
Dark Humour is when you are laughing at what should be a serious unfortunate thing, and actually requires skill to do right.
Click to expand...
It clearly wants to be Dark Humor.
 
CaptJ said:
If it is the other thing, I meant that people see those things in FO3 because FO3 made a song & dance about it. People didn't see those things in FO:NV because they play it/play it enough to know. I cite RazorFist's review as an example of not actually knowing much about the game.

Edit:

The same thing as the above. God, I hope that it isn't the shitty wording.
Click to expand...
No, I said that to you saying this:
CaptJ said:
Maybe because everything in FO3 is so blatantly in your face? Or maybe just not playing FO:NV?
Click to expand...
To Risewild. I'm sure entirely sure what does that first question meant, really. But the answer to that second question is just damn wrong. Risewild is a member of TTW team, and he's sure as hell played A LOT of New Vegas. But I see that those questions aren't actually directed at Risewild, but that you meant to address people who praised Fallout 3 and shunned at New Vegas, so sorry!
 
Jogre said:
Bethesda just throws in silly, whacky, over the top NPCs and anything they pass of as "Humour" is stupid cartoonish logic applied to a game they want us to take seriously
Click to expand...

Is it ever implied that the developers care whether their interpretation of Fallout is taken seriously?

Like, legitimate question. There's only one guy at Bethesda who wants the game to be taken seriously (the guy who tried to salvage the vanilla game's story with Far Harbor). Maybe two - the guy who snuck in skill checks in that robot boat quest where they sail the boat into a building rather than into the river that connects to the ocean.
 
Last edited:
I always thought that Far Harbor was just Bethesda's way of telling players "See? We could make the game with "skill checks" and all of that stuff many people want if we really wanted to. But we didn't. We're not incompetent. We just don't want the game to be like that, so deal with it!" :lmao:
 
I always thought Far Harbour was a way of saying "We've got to stop players from complaining about the lack of skill checks. Lets put the bare minimum amount of effort in to putting skill checks in this DLC and players will stop complaining" and it worked.
 
Risewild said:
I always thought that Far Harbor was just Bethesda's way of telling players "See? We could make the game with "skill checks" and all of that stuff many people want if we really wanted to. But we didn't. We're not incompetent. We just don't want the game to be like that, so deal with it!" :lmao:
Click to expand...

It's probably a low-level writer who has some secret beef with upper-management, and he decided to put in all of the things they hate like some sort of final swan song.
 
So, r/Fallout no longer believes that Fallout 3 was the grimdark peak of the series.

Fallout 2 darkest.png


Still not quite understanding dark here Reddit, but better than last time.

Though there's still this guy:
This guy isn't getting it.png
 
"Bethesda purposefully make their characters bland because the games were designed with us roleplayers in mind to fill in the blanks."

But don't you think that works against the company's favor if their target demographic is roleplayers and not the rest of the world?

"No. Also 'bland' is subjective."
 
CaptJ said:
Click to expand...

Oh good lord, that's one of the worst reviews i ever seen.

Granted, he's right about the game being released in a broken state, but then forgets that Fallout 3 was also buggy as shit at release. That's not an excuse for the state of NV at release, but don't use Fallout 3 of all things to compare the state of a game.

Holy shit, he complains about several npcs not having interaction with the player but forgets that also happens in Fallout 3 and games before Fallout 3. Not every NPC is going to be interactable.

Lol at him complaining about New Vegas not having level scaling.


And the cherry on top of this shit cake of a review: saying Bethesda had to step in to fix the bugs of NV. Bethesda were the ones that did playtesting and QA of NV, not Obsidian. And the hilarity of saying Bethesda fixes bugs when their games are still full of them, even after being heavily patched.
 
Last edited:
This one is straight from YouTube

"Anyone who thinks FO4 is too much action and not enough RPG, go read a book."
 
I'll be honest, I enjoyed Far Harbor more than the rest of FO4. Maybe it's because the "skill checks but not really" tricked me into thinking I was playing a good Fallout game.
 
I had no funny arguments with them, all their arguments are dumb, and stupidity is rarely funny... for me at least.
 
I used to be in a meetup group with a person who worked at bethesda as a level designer. He was trying to tell me that Fallout 4 was going to be amazing and way better than any of the previous games. I remembered initially asking him if he had played any of the old fallout games, and of course he told me they hadn't. I took some time to regale him about the experiences of fallout 2, asking if there will be anything like the Modoc Gold Watch quest and if you could do something as story worthy as blowing up an outhouse. His response was:

"Oh, well we can't do anything that complicated on our engine."

I then asked if we would be able to mod the game to put monocles and tiny hats on the mirelurks, and they were pretty darn sure they could do that. It just seems that with more technology the stories have only become more limited in their scope by the over all engine. But hey, monocles and tophats!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top