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

Superman said:
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.
Click to expand...
And those are exactly what can happen in video games, too, you know? Writings are writings, no matter where it is; novels, essay, video games. For example, Fallout has an established lore that would always be used as a measure against future iterations. I won't go into details, I'm sure you know what I am saying.

Superman said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Don't like" Now that's subjective. You don't like something means it's bad? Honestly, did you thought most of the arguments here boils down to, "I don't like this, so that means this is bad."? It's actually the opposite, mostly here pointed out why this and that is bad, then and ONLY then they would state their dislikes of this and that.
"Story doesn't make sense" Eh, since I actually haven't really finished the game, I would leave that argument to others who have finished the game and actually understand it more than you and me. If I'm to give my two cents, however, The Nameless One never really die? I mean, if he truly die, why did he woke up on that slab in Mortuary, again? If you did finished the game, you should've get the answer, no?

Superman said:
The quality of writing of any given medium of entertainment is subjective because it is percieved, not measured.
Click to expand...
But from these perception, we measure the quality of the writing. Like consistency, and plot that makes sense. For example, in Fallout 3, Dad made it seems like the wasteland is having water problem. However, it's been 200 years, and it was obvious the Capital Wasteland are doing well, there wasn't much problem or an on-going conflict around the waste that's as urgent as the political tension and stalemate reaching its' end like in the Mojave Wasteland. So why did Dad wanted to get that purifier working, again? If it's been 200 years and people were doing just fine? Especially since they got the BoS protecting them from Super Mutants (and don't get me to speak about the validity of Super Mutants appearance in the East Coast. While they do tried to explain it, they do it in such a way that would require a retcon to the established lore). All of these problems suffers from a case of bad writing, and can be easily solved by simply write off the setting from 200 years, back to their original plan of making the setting 20 years. Of course, some other problems also stems from the lack of creativity, since they can't think of other elements that could be put in place of BoS and Super Mutants. But still.....

Superman said:
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.
Click to expand...
For heaven's sake, no one here is bashing anyone. Now that I read it again, some here did bashed the person, but you made it seems like this whole thread is bashing the person when mostly only making fun of the arguments, not the person.

And you've got to admit, most of these 'arguments' just completely stupid. Have you read my case? This guy refused to continue arguments with me because they thought my reply was 'not reader-friendly', when I wrote it in the same way I've been replying to them. So why they even bother replying to me in the first place, only to drop it because it's 'not reader-friendly', while my initial post they replied to was written in the exact same way?

Superman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except you forgot that the guy also said this
I love RPGs, but Fallout 1 wasn't doing it. Fallout 2's pretty good and all, but some parts feel laking.
Click to expand...
I'm sure at this point you wouldn't want to see anyone here trying to explain to you why the guy's argument is ridiculous, irrational, wrong, and completely unfair. Comparing narrative in Fallout 1/2 to that in Fallout 4? Seriously?
 
Last edited:
Oh plz... not again this Quality is subjective nonsense ...

03eb62b717f323973de63315333e70a4.jpg
 
I did have an argument where someone said that Obsidian didn't put enough effort into New Vegas because it "Uses the same engine as Fallout 3"

I tore him a new one
 
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:
Click to expand...
Beacause simply put, quality, isn't as subjective as people think it is. I mean absolutely, there is a certain degree of opinion that goes in it. That's why you can argue about it so much. We are not talking about Math here after all. But there are limitations and boundaries to what goes and what doesn't.
Imagine Lightsabers from Star Wars in Game of Thrones for example? It would be sure cool. But would it give the setting and the narrative more quality? I doubt it.



And the same applies to many forms of creative work, drawing, painting, filming and well, of course writing.
 
Superman said:
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:


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 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?
Click to expand...

Actually, no, I didn't call him stupid. I said he had cognitive dissonance. He claimed that a game that has removed some, if not many, of the elements that make a game an RPG rather than a FPS or 4X is a better RPG than the previous episodes of the series, despite the fact that he acknowledges that the prior incarnations had more of the elements that make a game an RPG.
 
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...
So Superman has retreated to the Fortress of Solitude, but I'd still like to point out that Brahmin Noodles stated that 1/2/NV had better writing by way of not having as many plot holes as 3/4, which is a valid and objective criteria for proving one's better than the other.
 
YouTube. I have a lot of those in YouTube. I try to stay away from Reddit arguments, but sometimes I just HAVE to voice my opinion, even if I know I'll get downvoted to hell or called a "circlejerker".

Anyways, I was going to post a YouTube argument I had, but it drags on. Anyhow, this is how it went:

Dude: "I like Fallout 4 better than New Vegas, what does that make me?"
Me: "Not a true Fallout fan."

I explained how the aesthetic is the thing that matters the less in Fallout, and how it was Bethesda that, by taking the world into full 3D first person, exploited the aesthetic to limits beyond what was possible for Fallout 1 & 2. I mean, really: if you showed Fallout 1 to a parent, would he immediately recognize the aesthetic? I know mine wouldn't. Hell, I know I wouldn't, because there is literally nothing that points you to it. Only the intro does, and that's it.

He went on to say that the aesthetic is what matters the most. He said "and since Fallout now belongs to Bethesda, they are the ones who can decide what is true for Fallout, for better or worse."

My reply: "A Fallout fan, or any X fan, plays the games for what they are and not because of how they are dressed. That's why a lot of people downright refuse to play the originals because "they're too dated". They are the best RPGs of the franchise. How can someone call themselves a Fallout fan after saying that, or saying that FO3 or 4 are better Fallout games than New Vegas? It boggles the mind."

Constant back and forth arguement between "how are they not real Fallout games?" and me appealing to the absurd (but logical) explanation that a racing game themed in the Fallout universe is not a Fallout game, no matter the title on the box. Later on I explained that's my stand on Fallout: Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel was well.

I later added that Bethesda's game are vastly different to the originals (and New Vegas) in intent and scope. Mostly things regarding to the questing, gameplay, and moral dilemmas themselves. His lengthy reply:

No moral dilemmas in Fallout 4? What about the synth slavery issue? Or how morally ambiguous the Brotherhood is in the game?

And as for your comments about how it doesn't sticks to the original vision, let me post an excerpt from a really good post:

"So I find it irritating when people say that FO3/4 doesn't capture the soul of Fallout. It absolutely does. Once again, you're fighting the wars humanity has fought over and over again: establishing a nation, security from a threat, freedom of the oppressed. It's undeniably Fallout, right down to the parallels drawn between the past and the present, the blending of the old and new with its differences and commonality."

"The switch is that New Vegas was about looking at the past, as if with weary eyes staring down a long road. It's about reflecting on what's been done and what to do about it, about analyzing all of these established powers and what they've done, about looking at the history of America and deciding whether its sins should be admonished, forgiven, or ignored. It's slow and structured because that's what the past is like. When it asks about the past it's done with pessimism and regret, noting the emptiness of it all against the emptiness of the Mojave."

"FO3/4 are about just accepting the new world and trying to move forward. It's asking questions about where humanity is going, how things done now will ripple into tomorrow, about the possibilities of the way things are now. It's energetic and vibrant and unknown because that's what the future is like. It's optimistic and busy, and it looks to the past as lessons learned when forging ahead."

" My bottom line is that just because FO4 and New Vegas are in the same franchise doesn't mean they need to be the same game. They both honor the foundations of the franchise in their own way. It's just that New Vegas wanted to take a slower, more reflecting journey by guiding players down a more rigid path. FO4 would rather just drop the player into the middle of things and let them revel in the world and make of it what they will. If New Vegas is a choose your own adventure novel, then FO4 is a collection of short stories. There's no right or wrong way to experience these worlds."

If YouTube were NMA I would have laughed at him and called it a day, but I just finished by telling him there's no point of comparison between one game's idea of "moral dilemma" (freeing sentient robots is actually a moral dilemma? Really?) and another one's ("should I side with Caesar's Legion, who obviously rule with an iron fist but at least there's order, or should I side with the NCR, who act like the good guys when they aren't, and they can't even control their own territory?").

I actually lol'd at the bolded part (which he bolded himself). And it goes back to the original argument: people don't play games because of the aesthetic or because they belong to a certain franchise. They play them because they enjoy the games. It's dangerous to call yourself a fan of a certain franchise. It means you are a fan of the bad and the good.

I'm a classic Fallout fan, and a New Vegas fan, or in other words, what I call the "true Fallout trilogy", because you can tell they have a lot in common. But FO3 and FO4 are far too different, in a bad way. People only enjoy the exploration and shooting aspects of those games, and the famous "environmental storytelling" (garden gnomes, teddy bears and skeletons in funnay positions).

On an unrelated note, what's funny is my brother (who doesn't play videogames) understood everything I said, and agreed with me. It's like he's the only logical person I know of. It's not too hard a concept to get: if Da Vinci makes two paintings, and then I imitate Da Vinci and slap his signature on my paintings, my paintings won't be Da Vinci's.
 
Last edited:
It really baffles me how people praised Bethesda's 'environmental storytelling'. Meanwhile, there are the Soulsborne games with actual, and genuine environmental storytelling done right and far, far better than what Bethesda have done.
 
Black Angel said:
It really baffles me how people praised Bethesda's 'environmental storytelling'. Meanwhile, there are the Soulsborne games with actual, and genuine environmental storytelling done right and far, far better than what Bethesda have done.
Click to expand...

Crni Vuk said:
Placing skeletons in random and awkard positions is story telling these days ...
Click to expand...

The other day I made an honest effort in remember what pieces of environmental storytelling I remembered from Bethesda's Fallout 3. And I couldn't remember any. At all.

I want to mention at least something, so here I go: two crutches in a child's bedroom. But does that count as environmental storytelling, at all? All I get is "here lived a crippled kid". What if I suddenly placed a ton of baseball bats, caps, gloves, and balls in a room? "Here lived a kid who REALLY loved baseball".

That's not environmental storytelling to me. It doesn't really tell a story.

On the other hand, we have The Glow. There are dead corpses outside The Glow. When you are there, it is obvious: "here died persons because of radiation". But with extra knowledge, it gets an entirely new meaning: "here died persons because of radiation, BECAUSE the Brotherhood of Steel send them to recover something they didn't expect them to recover".
 
These arguments are never funny butt a buddy of mine once tried to tell me that the players should not be allowed to kill children or sell them into slavery because it's wrong. all I could muster was: "I demand the right to sell children into slavery!" I got a lotta wierd looks from the other passengers on the bus.
 
R.Graves said:
These arguments are never funny butt a buddy of mine once tried to tell me that the players should not be allowed to kill children or sell them into slavery because it's wrong. all I could muster was: "I demand the right to sell children into slavery!" I got a lotta wierd looks from the other passengers on the bus.
Click to expand...
Yet, Bethesda allowed us to sell children into slavery in Fallout 3.....
 
R.Graves said:
Does this count as environmental stroytelling? Best thing Beth has ripped off is 'there will come soft rains' imo.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNG0Pi2-zCnrdHjd0YbctAZye2KA8A
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is, that you have so much of it in Fallout 3 and 4, that it is hard to decide what is now story telling, and what is just random stuff thrown in for giggles. I think, the Glowing Sea, is a very good way of environmental story telling - if what I have read about it is true. Because the area has a reason to be there, and it can be explored by the player with an explanation WHY the glowing sea actually exists, and it can pose a challange. It ties in to the narrative of the whole game and has a part in to the gameplay. Just a room with two kissing skeletons or a bar with baseball caps or what ever ... that's interesting, once, but they do this so often that it becomes decoration rather than clever story telling.

I would say, as a rulle of thumb, you have to ask your self a couple of questions. What is the purpose of it? And what would you loose if it wouldn't be there. Could you make Fallout 4 without the glowing sea? Probably. But you would loose a very interesting area and gameplay. Now take something like the McClellan family, would you really miss something if you never found it? Not really, as it doesn't add anything substantial to the game.
 
"It's just a matter of opinion." (In an argument on what it means to 'be' turnbased; the thread had a tangent about VATS.)
"Pong is Turnbased!" (I don't remember if I actually took part in this one, but it sure was fun to watch.)

No links 'cause those quotes are just that old.

I could probably remember more, but I'd rather not relive those moments even in my mind. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top